APHC010423962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8566/2025 Between: Kataiah Gandhipogu, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. LINGALA HAZARATHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.66 of 2025 of Kondapuram Police Station, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329 (3), 324 (4) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘the BNS’) and Section 5 of Explosive Act. 2 2. The prosecution's case, in a nutshell, is that on 22.07.2025 at 20:00 hours, at a distance of 200 meters near Yerrabotlapalli Village, Kondapuram Mandal, accused Nos.1 and 2 dug pits 10 feet deep and allegedly placed detonators and explosives at around 15 locations for white stone removal using a Hitachi Excavator vehicle. When the villagers arrived at the scene, Accused No.3, the driver of the Hitachi Excavator, fled. The villagers then reported the illegal mining activities to the Village Revenue Officer, stating that the land in question, which covers an area of 2.10 acres in Sy. No. 159-1, is government-owned. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. Mr. K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri L.Hazarathaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence; they were falsely implicated in this case; the petitioner No.1/A1 is old aged person and petitioner No.2/A2 is the sole breadwinner; they are ready to abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court; and urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2. 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that investigation is not yet completed; if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, he will interfere in the investigation, and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 3 6. The allegations against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, as per the statements of L.Ws. 2 to 7, are that they allegedly trespassed onto government land situated in Yerrabotlapalli Village, Kondapuram Mandal, and attempted to cause mischief by using explosive substances to blast white stone on the land. This was noticed by the villagers, who informed the same to the de facto complainant/Village Revenue Officer of Yerrabotlapalli Village, Kondapuram Mandal. 7. Mr. K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri L.Hazarathaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were falsely implicated in this case, as they never went near the disputed site, nor did they place the explosive substances. He claims that due to political rivalry, the petitioners were falsely implicated. The petitioner No.1/A1 is aged about 70 years and he suffers from heart ailment and other old aged ailments and the petitioner No.2/A2 is the sole breadwinner of his family. 8. In view of the statements of LWs.2 to 7, and obtaining facts and circumstances, this Court finds that it is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to petitioner No.2/accused No.2 at this juncture. Accordingly, the petition against petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is dismissed. However, considering the age and ailments of petitioner No.1/accused No.1, this Court is inclined to grant pre- arrest bail to petitioner No.1/accused No.1. 4 9. In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed dismissing the petition against the petitioner No.2/accused No.2 while granting pre-arrest bail to petitioner No.1/accused No.1, with the following stringent conditions: a) In the event of arrest of the petitioner No.1/accused No.1, the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; b) The petitioner No.1/accused No.1 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; c) The petitioner No.1/accused No.1 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; d) The petitioner No.1/accused No.1 shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 30.08.2025 S D P 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8566 of 2025 Date:30.08.2025 S D P