lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI irif'F#:€f;;:;/ WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMB TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8920, 8941 & 9245 OF 2025 CRLP.NO.8920 OF 2025: Between: Bobbala Srinivasa Rao, S/6. Late Bobbala Dharmaraju, Aged 62 years, R/o. D.No. 24-2-1372, C.C.S. Nagar, Opp. LIC Office, Nellore, SPSR NeIIore District. ..]petitioner/Accused No]2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Nelapadu Amaravati, through the Station House Offllcer, Dargamitta P.S., Tirupathi District. ...Respondent petition under section 482 dlf BNSS, 2023, is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support ot-the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with F.I.R.No.137 of 2025, dated 31.07.2025, on the file of Dargamitta Police Station, SPSR Nellore District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon Perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri Malireddy Gowtham, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Public Prosecutor for Responclent, the Court macle the following iiEiiEiiEffi H Between.- 1. Anapalli uday Bhaskar, s/o yanadhiah, Aged about 44 years, occ.I Agricultaralist, R/o Nor{hrajupalem VIIlage, spsR Nellore District. 2. Konda srllniVaSulu Reddy, 1S/o Audepa Reddy, Aged about 56 years, occ.- Agricultaralis{ R/o Vjdavaluru vI'IIage, Kodavalur MandaI, SPSR Nellore District. I..Petitioner/Accused No.5 & 6 AND The State of Andhra pradesh, Rep. by I|tS PublI-C Prosecutor, HI-gh Court of Andhra pradesh. . . . Respondent/Defacto complainant petl'tion under sectl|on 482 of BNSS, I'S filed praying that in the circumstances stated l'n the grounds filed I-n Support Of the Crl-minaI Petjtjon, the High court may be pleased to release the petI-I,'Oner/Accused No.5 and 6 by grantI|ng antjcipatory bail I|n th6 event of thel'r arrest I-n crI-me No.137/2025 on the fl'Ie of Dargam['tta police Station, spsR Nellore Djs{rI-Ct. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perus]|ng the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearlng the argumgrts of sri Ramalakshmana Reddy sanepaIII, Advocate for the petI'tI'Onerg and of public prosecutor for Respondent. / 2025 Between : Nallapareddy prasanna Kumar Reddy, s/o. Nallapaureddy srjnjvasulu Reddy, aged about 60 years, Ex-MLA, R/o. D.No.24-1479 Sujathamma Colony, Dargaml-tta, Nellore. u.Petit]-oner/Accused No.1 I--,.3-r ,:i ; {< t/ AN.D The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravati. ...Respondent/Complainant ti. petit-Ion under section 482 of BNSS, is filed praying that 'ln the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petit'loner/Accused No.1 on ba|II in the event of his arrest in crime No.137/2025, on the file of the Dargamitta Police Station, Ne[[ore. IANO: 1 OF2025 petition under section 528 of BNSS, is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petit'lon, the High court may be pleased to grant Interim Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crime`'N6.137/2025, on the file of the Dargamitta ` police station, Nellore in the evient of his arrest, Pending disposal of CRLP 9245 of 2025] on the file of the High Court. The petition coming on for hear'lng, upon Perusing the Petition and the grounds filed -ln support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sr-I v.Roopesh Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Public prosecutor for Respondent, the C6ri'rt made the following !` APHCO10448252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (SpecI-all Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8920/2025 [3521 I Betwee n : 1.BOBBALA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE BOBBALA DHARMARAJU, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O. D:NO.24-2-1-372, C.C.S. NAGAR, OPP. LIE OFFICE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Nelapadu Amaravati, through the Station House Officer, Dargamitta P.S., Tirupathi District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -I Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MALIREDDY GOVVTHAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APHCO10448562025 EiffiM IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (special original Jurisdi.ction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO QBIMINAL PETITION NO: 8941/202£ Between: 1.ANAPALLI UDAY BHASKAR, S/O YANADHIAH AGED ABOUT 44 yEARS, OCC AGRICULTARALIST R/O NORTHRAJUPALEM VILLAGE, spsR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2.KONDA SRINIVASULU REDDY, S/O AUDEPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTARALIST R/O VIDAVALURU VILLAGE, KODAVALUR MANDAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE `OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court ofAndhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT counsel for the petitioner/accused(S): 1. RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SAN EPALLI counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ___---ey APHCO10464092025 ffFELE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original JurisdictI-On) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO £B±nflINAL PETITION NO: 9245±2Q2± Between.- 1.NALLAPAREDDY PRASANNA KUMAR REDDY, S/O. NALLAPAUREDDY SRINIVASULU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, :i-RMGLAfinITTR;oriELLD;RNE: 24-1479 SUJATHAMMA COLONY, .mPETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its publl'c Prosecutor, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh, At Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the petitioner/accused.I 1.V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC F'ROSECUTOR The Court made the following c -4,S<s. \=-i COMMON ORDER: criminal petition No. 8920 of 2025 has been filed by the Pet'ltiOner- accused No. 2, Criminal Petition No. 8941 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 5 and 6 and Criminal Petition No. 9245 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner-accused No. 1, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking for granting Of Pre-arrest bail tO them 'ln crime No.137 of 2025 of Dargamitta Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the OffenCeS Punishable under Sections 189 (3) and 121 (2) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. These three criminal petitions are heard together and disposed Of by way of this common order as they arise out of one crime albeit the petitioners are different. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 3. On 31-07-2025 at about 10 p.m., defacto COmPlainant, Who iS a Head constable, special Branch, Kavali ll Town Police Station, was attending Bandobust duty On the occasion Of Visiting Of Y.S,Jagan Mohan Reddy, Former Chief Min-lster, to the house Of accused No.1. While de facto complainant was checking the vehicles, accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with a mob of persons came there and obstructed him from discharg'lng his offic'Ial duties. when de facto complainant was pushed, he fell down and the said mob walked over him, due to which he susta'lned swell-lng injury on his wrist. De facto complainant Was admitted in KIMS Ht)~sp<ital, Nellore, for treatment. ONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FORTHE PETITIONERS 4. Learned counsel for the pe{itI-OnerS WOuld submI-I that de facto complaI'nant himself fell down on ground and suffered injurI-eS. He was in civil dress. He was not in poII'Ce uniform. Therefore, the occasion and scope of threatening de facto complainant may not arise, as the petitioners were not aware that he is a Head Constable, special Branch. The petl'tioners undertake to abide by any conditI'On that this Court may impose while granting Pre-arrest bail to them. Hence, jt I'S urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: .- 5. Per confra, sri Neelothpal Ganji, learned Assistant public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses yet to be examined. It is subml'tted that enlargement of the petitI-OnerS On bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigatl'on and may result in non-cooperation from the petitioners. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioners, if released, may I'nfluence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructllng the course ofjus{ice. lt is also urged that there exists a real and immI'nent risk of the petitioners absconding and evading the due process of law. Learned Assistant public Prosecutor further submits that there are adverse antecedents reported agaI'nSt the PetI-tiOnerS. The petitioners, knowing pretty well that de facto compiainant belonged to police department, caused grI'eVOuS ]'njurjes to him by forming themselves into an un]awfu! assembly. GI-yen the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the / E= integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioners do not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and it -ls urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed On the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. ln the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions Of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: ['whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?" ANALYSIS: 8. lt is pert-lnentto mention th'at learned Special Judge forTrial ofOffences aga-lnst Women -Gum -VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ne'lore, granted pre-arrest bail to accused No. 3 by order dated 21-08-2025 in criminal M.P.No..1143 of 2025 and in respect of-accused No. 2, it was dismissed. Learned VIll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, in his order, mentioned that except arresting accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 22, the remaining investigation was completed and there was no need for custodial interrogation. It was further observed that as seen from the complaint/report, de facto complainant mentioned that somebody in the mob pushed him; it was not stated spec-lfically about the name of the accused who pushed him', except |` stating against accused Nos. 1 to 3 specifically with their names, the names Of remaining accused were not stated. In paragraph No. 7-, learned V[ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, observed that the question of absconding from justice by accused Nos. 3, 5 anc! 7 to 20 would not arise. ' --ch ------------I 7 9. Indeed, exJ'Stence of adverse antecedents sim"ar in nature jtselfis not a sole basis for refusing the request for grant of regular or pre-arrest ba" as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court l'n prabAaAar I,-war,- v. sfafe of ufp. anct ofAers7. Even otherwise, the accused are presumed to be ,'nnocents till the guilt js proved. ' 10. Photographs and pen Drlve wI|th VJdeO footage are submI'tted and they have been perused. De facto complajnant fe" on ground by himself. Evidently, he was l|n cjv" dress. In a mob of more than 50 to 100 person, they were not jn a position to see whether de facto complainant is a polI'Ce Or not. chances of the accused knowing de fac{o complal'nan{ as police personnel may not arise as he was in civ" dress. The petI-tI|Oner-accused No. 1 is a former M.L.A. Adverse an{eceden{s reported agaI-nSt SOme of the petitioners hereI'n are regl'stered wI'thin last six months. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that as the petitioners belong to opposI-te Poll-tiCal party, they were falsely Implicated into the case even though no office was committed. De facto complaI'nant himself fe" on ground and sustained l'njurI'eS and takI'ng advantage of those injurI'eS, a false case was foisted through de- facto complainant by local political leaders. 9. ln {h,'s context, I-i iS apposlte to refer theJudgment of the Hon7ble Apex court in p. Krishna Mohan Ready v. state of Andhra pradesh2, wherein it is held at para No. 27 as under: 12020 (ll) SCC 648 22025 SCC Online sc 1157 tc27. . To some extent, the petitioners COuld be said to have made out a prima facie case of political bias or male f-lq?s b!t thef by it?elf -IS ,not Sufficient tO grant antiCiPatOry bail overlooking the othpr prima is one of facie materials on record., Political vend9fla or bias if an the relevant considerat-IOnS While considering the plea of anticipatre should keep one thing in mindl more PariiCularl_y]_ the plea of anticipatory bail that when two groups parties are at war which may ultimately lead to articularlv, criminal prosecutions there is bound__1_o_ bail. The courts while consideri_a_ pf rival political_ Iit®ICIatiOnS. more vendetta involved_ in the be some element of__ olitical bias or Same. olitical vendettahy jlself is not sufficient for the grant Of However Efcaada:f!t#E:via:o:fogocuc;:fvfln;nS3dch:ee;ed;I:#feoaii:eotufe#se:aart;:tog:#;io:a;a:fttihaafa:eanft:h;;ea;tEoooifnifteo ose of olitical vendetta -Into_ consideration for i_hpe the element of considering the_ plea of anticipatorv b_aajL The frivolity in the entire case that the court may look into should be attributed to political bias or vendetta. CONCLUSION: 10. Considering the facts and Circumstances Of the Case, the nature and gravity of allegat|lons levelled against the petitioners, and the photographs and the video footage available on record, this Court is inclined to grant Pre-arrest ba-ll to the petitioners-accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 with the following stringent conditions in the interest of justice: (i) In the eventofarrest, the Petitioners-accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing each a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand Only) With two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfac'tion of arresting officials; (jj) (jij) (I'V) (v) (vi) The petjtjoners-accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 sha" appear before the station House Officer concerned on every second saturday jn between 10.loo am and o5.-00 pm till completI-On Of I-nVeStigatjon,- The petitioners-accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 shall not commit or indulge in comml'ssion of any offence I'n future,I The petitioners-accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 shall cooperate with the I'nVeStigating offI-Cer in further I-nVeStI'gatiOn Of the case and shall make themselves avaI-Iable for interrogation by the I-nVeStigating officer as and when required; The petitioners-accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 sha" 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,- The petI'tI-OnerS-accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claI-m that they do not have passports, they shall submit affidavits to that effect to-the lnvestigat,-ng offI'Cer,I and (vji) , The pe{jtioners-accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 sha" not leave the limits of the state wl-thout prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. \ sD/-G.HELANAlr|U 10 ll. The criminal petitions are accordingly allowed. !l+iruE COPYII To, 1. The Station House Officer, Dargamitta Police Station, SPSR Nellore District. 2. One CC to Sri Malireddy Gowtham, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri S.Rama Lakshman Red'dy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri V.Roopesh Kumar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs toPUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of A.P., Amaravati. [OUT] 6. One spare copy. .>1 PSD \ HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATE :24/09/2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.8920, 8941 & 9245 of 2025 ALLOWED