APHC010458082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 9091, 9092 & 9093 of 2025 Crl.P.No.9091 of 2025 Between: 1.NARAM CHIRANJEEVI, S/O. APPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, DOOR NO.23 140, PEENARIPALEM, NARSIPATNAM, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Crl.P.No.9092 of 2025 Between: 1.NAKKA SRINUVASU @ NAKKA SRINU, S/O NAKKA SIVARAM KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, HINDU, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O D.NO.6-24-105/(1), VELAMA VEEDHI VEEDHI, 2 NARSIPATNAM, NARSIPATNAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Crl.P.No.9093 of 2025 Between: 1.KANCHUPATI SURYA PRAKASH, S/O KANCHUPATI RAJU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O D.NO.8-54, LACUDUVARI VEEDHI, NARSIPATNAM, NARSIPATNAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 COMMON ORDER: These three criminal petitions are heard and disposed of through this common order, as they pertain to the same alleged offence. 2. These Criminal Petitions had been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused No.6, 4 & 5 respectively, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.189/2024 of Narsipatnam Town Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 109, 118(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.09.2024 at 09:00 hours, Majji Nageswararao, lodged a complaint stating that his elder brother, Majji Ramana, has been in a relationship with Nargana Parvathi of SC Colony. On 01.09.2024 at around 16:00 hours, Rowthu Karunakar, Kumar (son of Mallesh), and their friend Polipati Prasad were taking photos and videos at Shanmuknagar layout, which were later circulated. Upon viewing the footage, a group of individuals, Sheikh Zeelani @ Jallu, Karri Ajay, Nakka Srinu, Kanchupati Surya, Naram Chinna, Naddi Kiran, and Durga of Kotha Veedhi, allegedly attacked Prasad with a beer bottle, causing head injuries. Later that evening, at 21:15 hours, when Majji Ramana went to BC Colony to confront them, the same group, along with one Shammu, allegedly assaulted him and Nagulapalli Durga 4 Prasad with knives, resulting in further head injuries. Both victims were admitted to Area Hospital, Narsipatnam, and Majji Ramana was subsequently referred to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, for advanced treatment. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 4. Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4, 5 & 6 submits that the Petitioners has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioners are the sole earning members of their families, and arrest would cause irreparable hardship to dependents. The Petitioners are willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. 5. 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 investigation and there is no likelihood of them absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4, 5 & 6 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 6. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed anticipatory bail, contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners are imperative 5 for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioners are granted pre- arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that Petitioners may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 7. 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. 8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 9. 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 Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 10. Upon thorough perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case and the averments contained in the anticipatory bail applications, it is evident that the accused persons are alleged to have conjointly assaulted the de-facto complainant using hands and sticks, resulting in bodily injuries not only to the complainant but also to four other individuals. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses, whose testimonies prima facie corroborate the sequence of events and the active participation of the accused in the commission of the 6 offence. The nature of the assault, the multiplicity of victims, and the use of blunt weapons suggest a premeditated and coordinated act of violence, thereby attracting Sections 109 and 118(1) read with Section 3(5) of ‘the BNS’, which pertain to abetment, concealment of design to commit offence, and involvement in unlawful activities of a group or gang. 11. In view of the gravity of the allegations, the multiplicity of injuries sustained, and the potential ramifications on public order and societal peace, this Court is of the considered opinion that granting anticipatory bail at this stage would not only hamper the ongoing investigation but may also embolden the accused to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The offences alleged are of a serious nature, involving elements of criminal conspiracy and group violence, which warrant custodial interrogation to unearth the broader nexus and motive. There are five injured persons in this case. The Petitioners and other accused bet the victims with hands and sticks. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected. 12. Indeed, grant of pre-arrest bail is neither a license for commission of a grave offence nor a shield or protection for the persons who have allegedly committed grave offence, and against whom specific overt acts are attributed, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab 1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi). 2 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 7 CONCLUSION: 13. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the specific allegations levelled against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4, 5 & 6, this Court is not inclined to consider the request of Petitioners/Accused Nos.4, 5 & 6 for grant of pre-arrest bail as the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4, 5 & 6 are disentitled for the relief. 14. Hence, these criminal petitions are dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 11.09.2025. VTS