[3521] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9037 OF 2025 V I K 'i Between: Katru Venkata Seshu Kumar, S/o Basaveswara Rao, Aged 52 Occupation Business, R/o D.No. 12-104, Chintalapeta, Gannavaram, District. years, Krishna Petltioner/Accused-13 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati Through S H O of Gannavaram Police Station Respondent/Complainant Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, (New Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS. 2023) praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail to the Petitioner/Accused No. 13 in the event of his arrest in connection with crime No. 42/2024, Gannavaram Police station. For the alleged offences punishable U/s 326.120B r/w 341 PC COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI. CHIRANJEEVI TANIKONDA COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER APHC010455182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ! [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 'TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9037/2025 Between: Katru Venkata Seshu Kumar ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: Chiranjeevi Tanikonda Counsel for the R’espondent/complainant: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime. No.42 of 2024 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the alleged offence punishable, under Section 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’). I t 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9037 of 2025 Dated, 10.09.2025 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: The prosecution's case, in brief, is that this case pertains to voluntarily causing grievous hurt, reported on 21.01.2024 at 18:00 hrs by complainant 2. Kasaraneni Venkata Pandu Ranga Rao. The incident occurred the same day at 15:00 hrs at Park Elite Hotel, Kesarapalli Village, Gahnavaram Mandal Krishna District. A real estate businessman, the complainant, was contacted a month prior by an individual identifying himself as Naresti, CEO of Bramara Real Estate, seeking 50-100 aqres of land. On 21.01.2024, the complainant met Naresh at Park Elite Hotel, accompanied by his friend Sudheer.. While waiting, two men arrived in an Innova car (AP09BG6869), held the complainant, and assaulted him with baseball bats and sticks, causing multiple fractures and injuries. He was admitted to Pinnamaneni Hospital for treatment. Based on his statement recorded by HC 3033, a case was registered as Cr. No. 42/2024 under Section 326 r/w 34 IPC. The Investigating Officerinspected the crime scene, prepared necessary documentation, and examined six I witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The medical officer confirmed the s Injuries were grievous. On 0V02.2024, A2 to A5 were apprehended at Kesarapalli village and confessed during questioning. Weapons and the vehicles used were seized in the presence of mediators. A1 was arrested on 06.02.2024. The investigation was completed, and a final charge sheet was ( submitted before the VIII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gannavaram. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9037 of 2025 Dated 10.09.2025 3. Sri Chiranjeevi Tanikonda, 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 anticipato[y bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. ' 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: Per contra, Ms.P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor 5. vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate 'Jvith the investigation and may evade the process of law. The prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioner may influence 6. witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial V 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9037of 2025 Dated 10.09.2025 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. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. ( 7. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 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 pre-arrest bail? 8. It ANALYSIS: As seen from the record, a Single Judge of this Court, in Crl.P.No.1829 of 2025 dated 08.05.2025, granted pre-arrest bail to Accused No. 16, the former Member of the Legislative Assembly of Gannavaram Constituency. The petitioner herein is arrayed as Accused No. 13. The case of the petitioner, though with slight deviations, stands on the same footing as that of Accused 9. No.16. Considering the facts and circumstances, the gravity and nature of the allegations leveled the Petitioner/Accused No. 13, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No. 13. 10. CONCLUSION: in the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following 11. conditions: 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9037 of 2025 Dated 10.09.2025 In the event of his arrest, the Petitioner/Accused No. 13 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), with two sureties for 1 the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ' The Petitioner/Accused No. 13 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; The Petitioner/Accused No. 13 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; The Petitioner/Accused No. 13 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. The Petitioner/Accused No. 13 shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the . Station House Officer concerned. I. IV. V. The Petitioner/Accused No. 13 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. VI. SD/- G.HELANAIDU- as^stanj registrar SECTION OFFICER /rrRUE COPY!/ F To, 1. The Station House officer, Gannavaram Urban Police Station. Krishna District One CC to SRI. CHIRANJEEVI TAN IKON DA Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of A.P[OUT] One spare copy 2. 3. 4. HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED: 10/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.9037 of 2025 ALLOWED