APHC010460242025 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 NO: 9126/2025 Between: 1.VENNELA APPLA NAIDU, S/O SIMHACHALAM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. VENNELAPALEM VILLAGE, PARAWADA, ANAKAPALLI DISTIICT. 2.MR. VENNELA DINESH, S/O APPALA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O. VENNELAPALEM VILLAGE, PARAWADA, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 3.MR. VENNELA APPARAO, S/O APPALA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O. VENNELAPALEM VILLAGE, PARAWADA, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 4.MR. VENNELA SIMHADRI, S/O (LATE) KANNAM NAIDU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. VENNELAPALEM VILLAGE, PARAWADA, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 5.MR. PYLA SANYASI RAO, S/O DEMUDU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. VENNELAPALEM VILLAGE, PARAWADA, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 6.MR. VENNELA MAHESH, S/O APPALA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O. VENNELAPALEM VILLAGE, PARAWADA, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 7.MR. PYLA SATYANARAYANA, S/O SATTI BABU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. VENNELAPALEM VILLAGE, PARAWADA, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 2 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature, at Amaravathi, Through PS Parawada, Anakapalli District). ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.KONA N.D.V.RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.221 of 2025 of Parwada Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 321, 341, 347, 260, 386, 503 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’) and Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.09.2023, at 7:00 PM, the complainant, Kondru Demudu, was wrongfully restrained and forcibly taken to a nearby field by seven individuals from Vennelapalem and Bobbili Villages. Under threat of death, including an alleged attempt by one accused to cut his neck, the complainant was coerced into signing blank stamp papers and white sheets. This act was purportedly motivated by a property dispute, as the 3 complainant had earlier filed a civil suit (O.S.No.295/2023) seeking permanent injunction against the accused, which remains pending before the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli. Witnesses who intervened or observed the incident were also allegedly threatened with dire consequences. Despite approaching the Parawada Police Station on 17.09.2023 and later the Superintendent of Police, Anakapalli District on 29.09.2023, no action was taken beyond issuance of a receipt. The complainant alleges that the accused conspired to unlawfully seize his property through intimidation and coercion, thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 347, 386, 503, and 120B of ‘the I.P.C’. Consequently, the FIR was registered pursuant to directions issued by the Court under Section 156(3) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Kona N.D.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and they have not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioners are the sole earning member of their families, and their arrest would cause irreparable hardship to their dependents. The Petitioners are willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioners have got fixed abode. 4. 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 absconding or tampering with the 4 prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 7 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. 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 stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that they may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 6. 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 progress of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 8. 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?” 5 ANALYSIS: 9. The allegation against the Petitioners are that they had indulged in commission of offences punishable under Sections 321, 341, 347, 260, 386, 503 and 120B of ‘the I.P.C.’ It appears that basing on the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, the case was registered under Section 156(3) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ 10. Even as seen from the averments of the FIR at column No.12, the alleged offence occurred on 16.09.2023. Whereas the complaint was lodged on 25.08.2023. There is civil dispute pending in between the parties in O.S.No.295/2023 on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli seeking for grant of permanent injunction against the Petitioners from interfering with the property of the de-facto complainant. 11. The complainant initially approached the Station House Officer, Parwada Police Station on 17.09.2023, later the Superintendent of Police, Anakapalli but no action was taken on the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant except issuing receipt. Therefore, the complainant approached the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate by way of filing a private complaint. 12. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that Accused Nos.3 & 4 has got one antecedent in Crime No.396/2025. Mere registration of a case against the Petitioners is not a ground to deny the relief to the Petitioners for the simple reason that the Petitioners shall be presumed to be innocent till the guilt is proved. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P.,1 1 (2020) 11 SCC 648 6 held that mere advert antecedents, criminal in nature, pending is not a ground for refusal of the relief of bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the allegations and the fact that a Civil Suit has already been pending in between the parties, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7. CONCLUSION: 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of their arrest, the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 7 shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 7 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 7 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 7 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. v. The Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 7 shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. 7 vi. The Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 7 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they does not have passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 11.09.2025 VTS