APHC010450582025 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: 8957/2025 Between: 1. ROUTHU JAGADEESH,, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O 7- 26-117, KAPU STREET, 7TH WARD, NARSIPATNAM, ASIRADA VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-531 116. 2. THUMMALA MOHAN,, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O 7- 26-128, KAPU STREET, 7TH WARD, NARSIPATNAM, ASIRADA, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-531 116. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI, NELAPADU, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. PAPPALA VARAPRASAD NAIDU PAPPALA NAIDU, S/O.GANGU NAIDU, AGED 32 YEARS. CONTRACT WORKER, R/O.VELAMAVEEDHI, 5TH WARD, NARSIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking for granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 3 in crime No. 159 of 2025 of Narsipatnam Town Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109 (1) and 118 (1) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 11-08-2025 at about 10 p.m. at VelamaVeedhi, Narsipatnam Town, accused Nos. 1 to 3 along with others attacked de facto complainant with an iron rod, knife and beer bottle. Accused No. 1 beat de facto complainant on his head with an iron rod. Accused No. 3 attacked de facto complainant with a knife and caused an injury to his right eyebrow. One Ashok hit de-facto complainant on head with a beer bottle. When friends of de facto complainant tried to rescue him, one of his friends by name Manikanta also received an injury on his left wrist. On noticing the same, sister of de-facto complainant raised hue and cry and on hearing the same, the accused left the scene. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. SriA.S.K.S.Bhargav, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocentsand have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families and their arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependentsof the petitioners. The petitioners undertaketo abide by any 3 condition that this Court may impose while granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that de facto complainant is a rowdy-sheeter.It is further submitted that the petitioners havepermanent places of residence and there is no likelihood of them absconding or evading the process of law.It 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, the petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are 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 petitioners absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the progress of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioners donot deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 4 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on 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 petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. There are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 3. L.Ws.2 and 3 are eyewitnesses. L.W.1 suffered injuries in the hands of the accused. Nature of the injuries suffered by de facto complainant is not yet confirmed as wound certificate is awaited. Weapon's recovery is not yet completed. Investigation is still at the nascent stage. There are two adverse antecedents of similar nature reported against the petitioner-accused No. 1 and also the petitioner-accused No.3. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners inasmuch as it would amount to giving a license for the person against whom serious allegations are levelled and it would also amount to giving a shield or protection to the person against whom accusation is well established as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab1 and 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 5 Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State of Delhi2. There are no merits in the criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. CONCLUSION: 10. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________________ Dr.Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:12-09-2025, JSK 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 6 HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8957 OF 2025 DATE: 12-09-2025 JSK