lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8939 OF 2025 Between : Chennupati Madhusudhana Rao @ Madhu, S/o Radha Krishna, R/o Timmarajupalem `village, Parchur Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Petitioners/Accused No.5 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Amaravati ...Respondent Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.5 on Regular Bail in Crime No. 53 of 2025 on the file of Parchur Police Station, Bapatla District, pending investigation and trial; The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gudiseva Venkata Sai Kiran, Advocate for the Petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following; : -ORDER: The Criminal petI'tiOn has been filed under sectI'OnS 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya NagarI-k Suraksha sanhI-{a, 2023 (for brevity fthe BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.5 on baI-I in Crime No.53 of 2025 of Parchur -`PolI-Ce `Station, Parchur Mandal of Bapatla District, registered against the petitI'Oner/Accused No.5 herein for the offence punishable under sections '109(1) read wl'th section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha, 2023 (for brevity lthe BNS'). CASE OF THE PROSECUTIQ±± \ 2. Material averments s{emmI-ng from the prosecution are that on 05.08.2025, the complainant, who is working as village Revenue Offl'cer at secretariat 10-4, Epurupalem village, Chl-rala Mandal, lodged a report stating that due to previous disputes between him and Accused No.1 in the aforementioned crime, Accused No.1 bore grudge against him and threatened to kill him. While so on o5.08.2025, near Thimmarajupalem electrical Sub-station on the NatI'OnaI Highway, Accused No.1 along with two others attacked the complainant with stI'CkS. Accused No.1 kicked him on his back; as a result, the complainant fell into the roadsl-de canal.along with motorbike. On hearing the screams of the complainant for help, some PaSSerSby rushed tO the Spot and rescued him from the hands of Accused No.1 and others. The complainant was shifted to parchur government Hospital for treatment. ii= i= CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Gudiseva Venkata Sai Kiran, learned Counsel for the Petitioner `submI'tS that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking him to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. 4. lt isfurthershomitted thatthere is nowhisperin the complaint aboutthe petitioner/Accused No.5. Petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation I-n future Proceedings. lt iS also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per cot,fro, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Publl-c Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still undervay and several material witnesses are yet to be examined. lt is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress~-of the investigation and may result in non- cooperation from the Petitioner. Given the gravity of the allegations and the POtential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petl-tioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and it is urged to dismiss the bail pe{i{ion. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. 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 bail?" A ANALYSIS: 7. As seen from the averments of the FIR, there is no reference about the role of the petitioner/Accused No.5 and the complaI'nan{ got some quarrels in far # occasions Accused No.1 gave confession statlng that the Petitioner/Accused No.5 I'S the root Cause for the alleged offence as wife of Accused No.5 has illicit intimacy with L.W.6. In the FIR, it is alleged that Accused Nos.1 and two others have caused the alleged attack. The allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.5 is that he indulged in the conspiracy to cause an attack on the complaI'nant. So far, seven (7) witnesses have examined and they are all material witnesses. The period of custodial interrogation is over. 8. Be that as i{ may, the petitioner has been I'n thejudiCial custody for the Past 32 days, he was arrested on o7.08.2025. The petitioner has got fixed \ (-. abode. The petitioner is permanent resident of parchur Mandal of Bapatla District. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following strl-ngent conditi-ons: i. The petitioner/Accused No.5 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he e\xecuting a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First class, Parchur, Bapatla District. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.5 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Parchur. Police' Station, Bapatla District, on every saturday in betiveen 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. iii. The petitioner/Accused No.5 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The petitioner/Accused No.5 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. Zi=,•=|ri v. The petitioner/Accused No.5 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The petitioner/Accused No.5 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. \ Sd/-N. NAGAMMA / ASSISTANT REGiSTRAR REJ: :,Rc: : //TRUE COPY// For. SECTIO To, 1. The Judic-lal Magistrate Of First Class, Parchur. Bapatla Distr-lot. 2. The Superintendent, Ongole Sub Jail, Prakasam District. 3. The Station House Off'lcer, Parchur Police Station, Bapatla District. 4. One CC to Sri. Gudiseva Venkata Sai Kiran, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two cos to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] 6. One spare COPY + ``.'1 = I._: =Ih. ` ±`.` -. '`L'+ `..`` I . I `| . > .* HIGH COURT Dr.YLR,J DATED:09/09/2025 ORDER CRLP.No]8939 of 2025 ALLOWED