APHC010462192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9236 OF 2025 Between: 1. GUNNURI ASHOK, S/O. G.NAGAYYA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC EDUCATION R/O D. NO. 10-384, BHAVANIPURAM RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL, CONSUTANCY KONTHAMURU VILLAGE, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, The State of Andhra Pradesh through Rajanagaram Police station. East Godavari District Rep by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A P Amaravati-AP ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. RAJESH KUMAR B 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 Petitioner/Accused for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.150 of 2025 of Rajanagaram Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 331(4), 305(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.04.2025 at 11.30 a.m the defacto complainant reported that he is running and maintained Dogs Paradise Shop at MSR Crushers, Teachers Colony, Konthamuru Village. As usual, he kept his all pets in his shed and went to his home. On 28.03.2025 at about 8.00 a.m, he came back and observed that his pet dogs shed lock was broken and noticed that 1 Cock, 4 Hens, 10 Pigeons and CC Cam DVR was found missing, worth of Rs. 10,000/- and stolen away. Hence the above case was registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri B. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully 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 arrest would cause irreparable hardship to dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. 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 him 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 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu,learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed anticipatory bail, but contending that Charge Sheet had already been filed on 29.08.2025, after completion of investigation. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. 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?” ANALYSIS: 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Police has served a notice under Section 35(3) of „the BNSS‟ on 27.08.2025. Charge Sheet had already been filed on 29.08.2025 after completion of investigation. CONCLUSION: 9. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner is directed to comply with the conditions of Notice issued by the Police under Section 35(3) of „the BNSS‟. 10. With the above observation, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 12.09.2025. KK THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9236 OF 2025 12.09.2025 KK