APHC010451292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9099 OF 2025 Between: Mannarapu Hareesh, S/o. Narasaiah, aged about 31 years, R/o.Eeduru- 1, T.P.Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District ...Petitioner/Accused No.3 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi ...Respondent Petition under Section 482 of BNSS 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, on Anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the SHO, Nellore Rural Police Station, S.P.S.R Nellore District, or his staff in Crime.No.260 of 2025, dated 05.07.2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following Order: y \ APHC010451292025 THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable dr justice Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9099/2025 Between: ■Mannarapu Hareesh ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED I AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: Madhava Rao Nalluri Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ORDER: The Criminal Petition has b^en filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the I Petitioner/Accused, No.3 for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.260 of 2025 of Nellore Rural Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 137 (2), 115 (2), 118 (1), 308 (5) and 351 (2) read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). ■'.r-VTTM 2 Dr.YLR,j Crl.P.No.9099 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.07.2025 at 11:00 hours at Satyamji Layout, a verbal altercation took place between one Vinith and the complainant over abusing the complainant’s uncle by Vinith and in the meanwhile Vinith friends Accused Nos.1 and 2 went there on bullet motor cycle and forcibly took the complainant and on their motor cycle to the open plots of Gundlapalem village and both Accused Nos.1 and 2,bet him with hands and legs and also Accused No.1 bet him with hockey stick and Accused No.2 threatened him with dire consequences on point of knife and further I Accused Nos.3 to 5 and, some others went there, bet the complainant with hockey sticks and extorted cash'of Rs.1,000/- from his pocket and on arrival of complainant’s uncle. All the accused absconded from the scene of offence. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper,for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and 4. F ( 3 . Dr.YLRJ y Crl.P.No.9099 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the circumstances investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a friend of prosecution who had certain disputes with the de-facto complainant regarding the alleged abuse of the complainant’s junior paternal uncle by Vinith. While the de-facto complainant and Vinith were discussing the said incident, some one Vinith other persons arrived at the scene, forcibly tobk the de-facto complainant on a ( and allegedly assaulted him with their hands and legs, The motorcycle petitioner has no role played in this case. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Pbtitioner/Accused No.3 in the interest of justice. arguments of THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: Per contra, Ms.P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stdge and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting materiarfacts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granteid pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. jhe prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. Ip view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the progress of the investigation, and urged to dismiss the petition. 5. 6. 4 Dr.YLR,j^ Crl.P.No.9099 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. I POINT FOR CONSIDERATION- In the light of the case of the prosejcution 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?” 8. ANALYSIS: 9. As seen from the record, the allegations against the petitioner/Accused No.3 are that he, along with other accused, beat the de-facto complainant with a hockey sticks. However, the complainant sustained only simple injuries. The allegations made against the petitioner are omnibus in nature. So far four I material witnesses have been, examined. There are no adverse criminal antecedents against the petitioner. He has la permanent place of residence at Eeduru-1, T.P. Gudur Mandal, SPSR District. The specific allegation is that the petitioner, along with some other accused, assaulted the de-facto complainant with sticks and forcibly took Rs.1,000/- from him. It is also noted that there was prior animosity between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant. In view of the above facts and circumstances and allegations attributed against the petitioner, there are no merits for grant of pre-arrest bail to the no 10. petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed '— I CONCLUSION: 5 Dr.YLR, V Crl.P.No.9099 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, in view of the obtaining circumstances of the case, liberty is granted to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Court 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. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION^ OFFICER To, Station, S.P.S.R 1. The Station House Officer, Nellore Rural Police Nellore District 2. One CC to Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies GPC VNA T HIGH COURT DATED; 15/09/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 9099 OF 2025 ?ro % o * S 2 3 SFP 2025 °) ^ . Current section . DISMISSING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION