APHC010453912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9070 Between: 1. GOLLAPALLI ROHITH VASU, S/O GOLLAPALLI SREENU, R/O. 6 SANKARAPURAM, CHINNACHOWK, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Amaravati Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. DHEERA KANISHKA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.10 on bail in Cr.No.57 of 2025 of Khajipet U/G Police Station, YSR Kadapa Di IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9070 OF 2025 GOLLAPALLI ROHITH VASU, S/O GOLLAPALLI SREENU, R/O. 6 SANKARAPURAM, CHINNACHOWK, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Amaravati ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: DHEERA KANISHKA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to etitioner/Accused No.10 on bail in Cr.No.57 of 2025 of Khajipet U/G Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered against the P IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO GOLLAPALLI ROHITH VASU, S/O GOLLAPALLI SREENU, R/O. 6-996, SANKARAPURAM, CHINNACHOWK, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to etitioner/Accused No.10 on bail in Cr.No.57 of 2025 of Khajipet strict, registered against the Petitioner/ Accused No.10 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 329 (3), 109 (1), 351 (2) read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.04.2025 at about 10.00 A.M., the complainant stated that she is earning her livelihood by doing finance business. She has been acquainted with one Obul Reddy of Ukkayapalli, Kadapa Town for the past one year, and during that period Obul Reddy had borrowed about Rs.10,80,000/- from her on various occasions. Subsequently, he did not respond to her and blocklisted her phone number. On 31.03.2025, when the complainant went to the house of Obul Reddy to question him, he, on learning of her arrival, did not come home and instructed his brother Pandu to lock the house. The complainant then took the keys from Pandu, telling him to send his brother to Khajipeta for the keys. Later, at about 10.00 P.M., Obul Reddy, in collusion with Surya of Kadapa, sent his associates, namely Laddu @ Mahammad Gouse, Bablu, and five others, armed with knives and sticks, to assault the complainant. While they trespassed into her house and threatened her, she immediately called her driver, Shiva Krishna. When Shiva Krishna questioned them, Laddu @ Mahammad Gouse attacked him with a knife, causing bleeding injuries to his stomach and left hand, and another associate beat him with a stick, causing swelling on his left shoulder. Out of fear, the complainant raised cries, and upon noticing the arrival of neighbours, the accused fled from the scene on their motorcycles. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Dheera Kanishka, 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 him 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 his dependents. 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. Akhila 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. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. 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: 7. As see from the record, the Petitioner/ Accused No.10 is a rowdy sheeter and a case under Section 302 of ‘the IPC’ was also registered against him. The Petitioner was arrested on 18.06.2025 and he has been in judicial custody for the past 81 days. This is second bail application. Earlier application in Criminal Petition No. 8370 of 2025 was dismissed on 21.08.2025. Material portion of investigation is completed. Although, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there is one adverse antecedent reported against the Petitioner in Crime No.72 of 2024 for the offence alleged under Section 302 of IPC. Until guilt is proved, the Petitioner/ Accused No.10 has to be presumed innocent. 8. Be that as it may, the petitioners have been in the judicial custody for the past 81 days, he was arrested on 18.06.2025. The petitioner has got fixed abode. He is permanent residents of Sankarapuram, Chinnachowk, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The Petitioner /Accused No.10 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur, YSR Kadapa District. ii. The Petitioner /Accused No.10 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Khajipet U/G Police Station, Kadapa District, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. iii. The Petitioner /Accused No.10 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The Petitioner /Accused No.10 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The Petitioner /Accused No.10 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The Petitioner /Accused No.10 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. vii. The Petitioner /Accused No.10 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claim that he do not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 11.09.2025 KK THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9070 OF 2025 11.09.2025 KK