APHC010462662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9189/2025 Between: Dasari Kranthi @ Ramarao and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. BASHEER AHMED Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 on bail in Crime No.16 of 2025 of Kandaleru Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 herein for the offences 2 punishable under Sections 103(2), 140(1), 61(2), 238 and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the case of the prosecution are that as the father of the complainant did not come home after closing his shop, the son approached the police. During the search, the dead body of the deceased/father of the complainant was found near Kandaleru dam road. On the information police registered the case and investigated. During the investigation, it was found that accused No.1 was in a romantic relationship with the daughter of the deceased, the deceased arranged marriage of his daughter with his relative; to stop the marriage, accused No.1 conspired with accused No.2 and with the help of the other accused, the deceased was abducted in a car and later murdered on 16.05.2025. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr. Basheer Ahmed, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families and their arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the Petitioners. The Petitioners undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioners. 3 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioners have permanent place of residence and there are no likelihood of their absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioners have 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, Petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akila 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 Petitioners on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non- cooperation from the Petitioners. The prosecution further apprehends that the Petitioners, 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 Petitioners 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 Petitioners does not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 4 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 Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. As seen from the record, it is the case of the prosecution against the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3, 4, and 6 that they were involved in the commission of the murder of Shaik Shafi (deceased). The prosecution alleges that accused No.1 maintained an illicit relationship with the daughter of the deceased and had given a supari to accused Nos. 2 to 7 to eliminate Shaik Shafi. It is further alleged that there were monetary transactions between accused No.1 and the other accused, indicating their involvement in the offence. The roles of the other accused came to light based on the confession of accused No.1. The prosecution contends that the petitioners are hired assassins. The petitioners were taken into custodial interrogation. A primary charge sheet was filed on 19.08.2025, and the case is presently at the P.R.C. stage. The final charge sheet has not yet been filed, as the report from the F.S.L. is awaited. Since the accusation is well founded against the petitioners, at this juncture, request of the petitioners for enlarging them on bail is not convincing and reasonable. 5 9. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations leveled against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to consider request of petitioners for enlarging the petitioners on bail at this stage. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 18.09.2025 S D P 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9189 of 2025 Date:18.09.2025 S D P