APHC010448252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8920/2025 Between: 1. BOBBALA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE BOBBALA DHARMARAJU, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.24-2-1372, C.C.S. NAGAR, OPP. LIE OFFICE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Nelapadu Amaravati, through the Station House Officer, Dargamitta P.S., Tirupathi District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MALIREDDY GOWTHAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 APHC010448562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8941/2025 Between: 1. ANAPALLI UDAY BHASKAR, S/O YANADHIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTARALIST R/O NORTHRAJUPALEM VILLAGE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. KONDA SRINIVASULU REDDY, S/O AUDEPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTARALIST R/O VIDAVALURU VILLAGE, KODAVALUR MANDAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 APHC010464092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9245/2025 Between: 1. NALLAPAREDDY PRASANNA KUMAR REDDY, S/O. NALLAPAUREDDY SRINIVASULU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, EX-MLA, R/O. D.NO. 24-1479 SUJATHAMMA COLONY, DARGAMITTA, NELLORE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,At Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following 4 COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition No. 8920 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner- accused No. 2, Criminal Petition No. 8941 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 5 and 6 and Criminal Petition No. 9245 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner-accused No. 1, under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking for granting of pre-arrest bail to them in crime No. 137 of 2025 of Dargamitta Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections189 (3) and 121 (2) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. These three criminal petitions are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order as they arise out of one crime albeit the petitioners are different. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 3. On31-07-2025 at about 10 p.m., de facto complainant, who is a Head Constable, Special Branch, Kavali II Town Police Station, was attending Bandobust duty on the occasion of visiting of Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy, Former Chief Minister, to the house of accused No. 1. While de facto complainant was checking the vehicles, accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with a mob of persons came there and obstructed him from discharging his official duties. When de facto complainant was pushed, he fell down and the said mob walked over him, due to which he sustained swelling injury on his wrist. De facto complainant was admitted in KIMS Hospital, Nellore, for treatment. 5 CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that de facto complainant himself fell down on ground and suffered injuries. He was in civil dress. He was not in police uniform. Therefore, the occasion and scope of threatening de facto complainant may not arise, as the petitioners were not aware that he is a Head Constable, Special Branch. The petitioners undertaketo abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting pre-arrest bail to them. Hence, it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Sri NeelothpalGanji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses yet to be examined.It is submitted that enlargement of the petitionerson bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the petitioners. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioners, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice.It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitionersabsconding and evading the due process of law. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that there are adverse antecedents reported against the petitioners. The petitioners, knowing pretty well that de facto complainant belonged to police department, caused grievous injuries to him by forming themselves into an unlawful assembly. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the 6 integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioners donot deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration isbestowedon the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides.I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitionersareentitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. It is pertinent to mention that learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences against Women – cum – VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, granted pre-arrest bail to accused No. 3 by order dated 21-08-2025 in Criminal M.P.No. 1143 of 2025 and in respect of accused No. 2, it was dismissed. Learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, in his order, mentioned that except arresting accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 22, the remaining investigation was completed and there was no need for custodial interrogation. It was further observed that as seen from the complaint/report, de facto complainant mentioned that somebody in the mob pushed him; it was not stated specifically about the name of the accused who pushed him; except stating against accused Nos. 1 to 3 specifically with their names, the names of remaining accused were not stated. In paragraph No. 7, learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, observed that the question of absconding from justice by accused Nos. 3, 5 and 7 to 20 would not arise. 7 9. Indeed, existence of adverse antecedents similar in nature itself is not a sole basis for refusing the request for grant of regular or pre-arrest bail as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others1. Even otherwise, the accused are presumed to be innocents till the guilt is proved. 10. Photographs and Pen Drive with video footage are submitted and they have been perused. De facto complainant fell on ground by himself. Evidently, he was in civil dress. In a mob of more than 50 to 100 person, they were not in a position to see whether de facto complainant is a police or not. Chances of the accused knowing de facto complainant as police personnel may not arise as he was in civil dress. The petitioner-accused No. 1 is a former M.L.A. Adverse antecedents reported against some of the petitioners herein are registered within last six months. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that as the petitioners belong to opposite political party, they were falsely implicated into the case even though no office was committed. De facto complainant himself fell on ground and sustained injuries and taking advantage of those injuries, a false case was foisted through de- facto complainant by local political leaders. 9. In this context, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, wherein it is held at para No. 27 as under: 1 2020 (11) SCC 648 22025 SCC Online SC 1157 8 “27. To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have made out a prima facie case of political bias or mala fides but that by itself is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail overlooking the other prima facie materials on record. Political vendetta or bias if any is one of the relevant considerations while considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The courts should keep one thing in mind, more particularly, while considering the plea of anticipatory bail that when two groups of rival political parties are at war which may ultimately lead to litigations, more particularly, criminal prosecutions there is bound to be some element of political bias or vendetta involved in the same. However, political vendetta by itself is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatory bail. The courts should not just look into the aspect of political vendetta and ignore the other materials on record constituting a prima facie case as alleged by the State. It is only when the court is convinced more than prima facie that the allegations are frivolous and baseless, that the court may bring into the element of political vendetta into consideration for the purpose of considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The frivolity in the entire case that the court may look into should be attributed to political bias or vendetta. CONCLUSION: 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioners, and the photographs and the video footage available on record, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners-accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 with the following stringent conditions in the interest of justice: (i) In the event of arrest, the petitioners-accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing each a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of arresting officials; 9 (ii) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every second Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm till completion of investigation; (iii) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future; (iv) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 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; (v) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 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; (vi) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claimthat they do not have passports, they shall submit affidavits to that effect to the Investigating Officer; and (vii) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 shall not leave the limits of the State without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. 10 11. The criminal petitions are accordingly allowed. _______________________ Dr.Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:24-09-2025, JSK 11 HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 8920, 8941 AND 9245 OF 2025 DATE: 24-09-2025 JSK