APHC010440032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8771/2025 Between: PulivarthiChinna ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SYED KHADER MASTAN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the Petitioner/Accused No.1, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.141 of 2025 of Chebrolu Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 351(3) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short „the BNS‟). 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is resident of Angalakuduru Village, Tenali Mandal and he is running wine shop in Chebrole. The accused are residents of Chebrole Cheruvupalem went to the wife shop of defacto complainant every day and used to demand supply free liquor to them otherwise they will fight with him. But, the defacto complainant bear the same patently. Taking advantage of the same, the accused went to the shop of the defacto complainant started fighting with him. Then the complainant stated to them that he will not provide free liquor to them. On that the accused developed grudge against the defacto complainant. On 18.06.2025 at 6.30 p.m., all the above accused went to the wine shop of the defacto complainant started quarreling with him and beat on the head of the defacto complainant with an iron road and causing bleeding injury and when the defacto complainant tried to escape from the spot, all the accused pelted stones on him, due to which the defacto complainant sustained injuries and when the persons present at the scene rescued the complainant and shifted him to hospital for treatment. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr. Syed Khader Mastan, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his 3 dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and custodial interrogation period was over and such custody is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 6. It is further urged that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the progress of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 4 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 8. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. The case of the prosecution, as seen from the record, is that the petitioner/Accused No.1 allegedly beat the victim on the head with an iron rod with force, as a result the defacto complainant suffered a severe bleeding injury. The petitioner is further alleged to have beaten the victim with the support of other persons. There are two eye witnesses, viz., L.Ws.4 and 5, and thus, specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioner. Only seven (07) witnesses have been examined so far, and the investigation is still at a nascent stage. The petitioner is disentitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail, as there are specific overt acts attributed against him. There are no merits in the petition. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 12.09.2025 S D P 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8771 of 2025 Date:12.09.2025 S D P