APHC010450782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9216/2025 Between: Chunduri Pothularaiah ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No.66 of 2025 of Lingasamudram Police Station, Nellore District, registered against the petitioner/Accused herein for the offence punishable under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the case of the prosecution are that the complainant is a daily wage labourer and his brother namely Gopi used to sell tarpaulin sheets in Bangalore and one Mahindra of his village is working under his brother. The accused used to tell Mahindra something against his brother and in this regard, the complainant questioned the accused and then accused verbally abused the complainant and when he attacked him, his mother rescued him from the hands of accused. Keeping the said grudge, on 14.07.2025 at around 3.30 PM, while the complainant leaving home on his motorcycle to attend the Gangamma festival in Mogilicharla Village, the accused kicked him. As a result, he fell down from the motorcycle and then the accused attacked the complainant mercilessly with the knife, caused severe bleeding injuries on his abdomen and fled away from the spot. Later, the mother of the complainant admitted him in Kandukur Government Hospital for treatment. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr.Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking 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 the dependents of the 3 Petitioner. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the 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 in future proceedings. 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, Petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are yet to be examined. It 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. The prosecution further apprehends that the Petitioner, 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 Petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioner does not 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 the 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 the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. The allegations against the petitioner/accused, as per the version of the prosecution, are that he caused injury to the victim. Although the injury is stated to be simple in nature as per the wound certificate, the victim sustained an injury that required 54 stitches to heal. This is the second bail application. L.Ws.5 to 7 are independent eyewitnesses. The investigation is at a progressive stage, and the F.S.L. report is awaited. There is no change in circumstance between the date of the earlier bail petition and the present one. The petitioner was arrested on 19.07.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 59 days. 9. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to consider request of petitioner for enlarging the petitioner on bail at this stage. 5 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 18.09.2025 S D P 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9216 of 2025 Date:18.09.2025 S D P