IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI * MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE iPRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8842 OF 2025 j Wi -I' •'!Si % SI '.J- ■'it- •0. \ ■g^ T’ i V Between: 1. Jodu Mallikarjuna, aged 48 yrs (A1) S/o Jodu Chinna Aswarthu, R/o D.No.4-60, Raghavapalli Village, Mudigubba Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. 2. Boyina Venkatanarayana, Aged 57 yrs (A2) S/o Late Boyina Ramanna, r/o D.No. 3-55, Raghavapalli Village, Mudigubba Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. 3. Jodu Santhosh, Aged 25 yrs (A6) S/o Jodu Sreeramulu, R/o D.No.4-60 Raghavapalli Village, Mudigubba Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. 4. Boyina Hareesh, Aged 25 yrs (A7) S/o Boyina Kumar, R/o D.No.4-15 Raghavapalli Village, Mudigubba Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. 5. Boyina Kumar, aged 49 yrs (A8) S/o Boyina Ramanna, R/o D.No.4-15 Raghavapalli Village, Mudigubba Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. 6. Pennabadi Siva Prasad @ Siva, Aged 36 yrs (A9) S/o Pennabadi Narasimhulu, r/o D.No.4-29, Raghavapalli Village, Mudigubba Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. 7. Pennabadi Pratap, Aged 34 yrs, (A10) S/o Narasimhulu R/o D.No.4-29 Raghavapalli Village, Mudigubba Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. ...Petitioners/Accused 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9,10 AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. ...Respondent Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 on bail in Crime No. 22 of 2025 of Mudigubba, P.S. Sathya Sai District in the event of his arrest in the interest of justice. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Public Prosecutor for Respondent, 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1,2, and 6 to 10 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.22 of 2025 of Mudigubba Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, registfered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191 (3), 118 (1) and 118 (2) read with 190 of ) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8842 of 2025 Dated 08.09.2025 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.02.2025 at about 1.30 PM., the accused No.1 to 10 formed into unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like sickle and shovel attacked the complainant. Pennabadi Parasuram, and his father, Peenabadi Thirumalaih, while the complainant and others questioned the accused not to proceed through their fields, A-1 beat with sickle and caused bleeding injuries on the head of both the complaint and his father, Thirumalaiah A. 2 beat with shovel and caused dumb injuries to I Thirumalaiah. On seeing the same their relatives, Thippaiah and Dhanunjaya intervened. All the accused A1 to A10 beat them with sticks and caused dumb injuries to Thippaiah also. This incident occured due to a Rastha dispute between the complainant and accused group. Rastha was already existed through the fields of complainant group. In this connection, on the report given by the complainant, a case was registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 3. Sri R. Harish Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners respectfully submit that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioners are the sole earning members of their family, and their arrest would cause irreparable hardship to their dependents. The Petitioners are willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioners have got fixed abode. ' \ 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8842 of 2025 Dated 08.09.2025 It is further, submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioners and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioners have cooperated with the 4. 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 Nos.1 to 7/Accused No. 1,2, 6 to 10 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: Per contra, Ms.P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor 5. vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners are imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that they may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. It is further urged that there exists a real likelihood of committing similar offences the petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail. The prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioners 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 integrity of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both side^. I have perused the entire record. 6. 7. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8842 of 2025 Dated 08.09.2025 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. As seen from the record, there is a case and counter case in between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant. The averments of the FIR and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ as seen, there are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accuased No.1 and 2 that they beat L.Ws.1 and 2 with sickle. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused No.1 and 2, this Court not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to them. Hence, the petition against them is dismissed. In so far as the allegations leveled against the Petitioner Nos.3 to 7 are concerned, there are no specific overt acts leveled, only omnibus allegations are made against the Petitioner Nos.3 to 7/Accused Nos.6 to 10. This Court in Crime No.21 of 2025, that is, in the case lodged by one of the accused in this crime, granted pre-arrest bail to the Accused Nos.1, 2 anc| 6 to 10 vide order dated 18.08.2025 in Crl.P.No.8352 of 2025. L.Ws.2, 3, and 5 have suffered grievous injuries in the hands of the Accused Nos.1 and 2, allegedly. L.W.6 is eye-witness. The relief against the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.1 and 2 is dimissed. 10. 5 . Dr.YLRJ Crl.P.No.8842 of 2025 Dated 08.09.2025 11. Considering the facts and circumstances, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled the Petitioner Nos.3 to 7/Accused Nos.6 to 10, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner No.3 to 7/Accused Nos.6 to 10. Thus, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed. However, as per the request of the learned counsel for the 12. petitioner No.1 and 2/Accused Nos.1 and 2, liberty is granted to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.1 and 2 to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and move an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned. The learned Jurisdictional Court concerned shall make endeavor to dispose of the said application in accordance with law, on its own merits by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor concerned, and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time, preferably in two (02) days. CONCLUSION: 1 A In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed with the following 13. \ conditions: i. In the event of his arrest, the Petitioner Nos.3 to 7/Accused Nos.6 to 10 shall be enlarged on bail subject to they executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8842 of 2025 Dated 08.09.2025 The Petitioner Nos.3 to 7/Accused Nos.6 to 10 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required; The Petitioner Nos.3 to 7/Accused Nos.6 to 10 shall not II. cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; The Petitioner Nos.3 to 7/Accused Nos.6 to 10 shall IV. appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. The Petitioner Nos.3 to 7/Accused Nos.6 to 10 shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. V. f The Petitioner Nos.3 to 7/Accused Nos.6 to 10 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passports, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. VI. SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri, Ananthapur District. 2. The Station House Officer, Mudigubba Police Station, Sathya Sai District. 3. One CC to Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of A.P., Amaravati.[OUT] 5. One spare copy. PSD HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATE:08/09/2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.8842 of 2025 PARTLY ALLOWED