APHC010469132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9303/2025 Between: 1. BHUMIREDDY BALA NAGI REDDY, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O NALGAVA NAGI REDDY @ YERRABBI, @ NAGI REDDY, D.NO.2/113-7-4, MAHESWARA NAGAR, YERRAGUNTIA TOWN AND MANDAL YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. NATIVE OF CHINNA DUDYALA VILLAGE, MUDDANUR MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. BHUMIREDDY LAKSHMI PRASAD REDDY, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O CHINNA NAGI REDDY, @ NAGI REDDY, @ YERRABBI, D.NO. 1/86 CHINNA DUDYALA VILLAGE, MUDDANUR MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DIST. 3. BHUMIREDDY NAGA SIVA REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O MUDAVA NAGI REDDY @ NAGI REDDY, D.NO. 1/93, CHINNA DUDYALA VILLAGE, MUDDANUR MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DIST. 4. NARAPUREDDY SANJEEVA REDDY, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O LATE SANJEEVA REDDY, D.NO.7/56A, KALAMALLA VILLAGE, YERRAGUNTIA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through SHO, Muddanur Police Station, Muddanur, YSR District, Kadapa, Represented by the Learned Public Prosecutor, Honble High Court of A.P. at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2 Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioners- accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 on bail in crime No. 365 of 2025 of Muddanur U/G Police Station, Kadapa District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections118 (1) and 351 (2) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the B.N.S.'). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 21-08-2025 at 9.30 a.m. at the revenue fields of ChinnaDudyala Village of Muddanur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, accused No. 1 pushed de facto complainant, as a result he fell down on the ground. Then accused No. 2 attacked de facto complainant with an axe on his head. When de-facto complainant tried to restrain accused No. 2, he received bleeding injury on his left index finger. Thereafter, all the accused threatened him with dire consequences. Immediately, de-facto complainant was shifted to Government General Hospital, Proddatur, for treatment. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 3. Sri K.Srinivas,learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged 3 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 undertaketo abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioners. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioners have permanent places of residence and there is no likelihood of them absconding or evading the process of law.The petitioners have cooperated with the investigation so far and assurecontinued 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, the petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms.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 petitionerson 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 4 of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioners donot deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is 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. In 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 bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioners is that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had played specific role in causing grievous hurt to L.W.1. Accused No. 1 pushed him on the ground. Accused No. 2 attacked him with an axe on his head. To ward off that blow, he raised his hands, as a result he suffered bleeding injury on his left hand index finger and right hand index finger. He suffered a grievous injury. The other accused beat L.W.1 with stones. Initially, FIR was registered for the alleged offence under Section 118 (1) of 'the B.N.S'. Later, it was altered to Section 118 (2) of 'the B.N.S.', as L.W.1 suffered grievous injuries. The petitioners were arrested on 23-08-2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 24 days. So far, seven witnesses are examined. In this case, four injuries are there. Remand Report reflects that a similar case in crime No. 367 of 2024 was registered against the petitioners. Of course, there is a dispute with regard to the land pending before competent civil Court for adjudication. 5 CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 and also the specific overt acts attributed against them, this Court is not inclined to enlarge them on bail at this stage. Therefore, the request for grant of bail to them is rejected for the present. 10. Insofar as the allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, they are milder in nature. The petitioner-accused No. 5 is aged about 73 years and the petitioner-accused No. 4 is aged about 52 years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos. 4 and 5 and their alleged role played in this case, this Court is inclined to enlarge them on bail with the following stringent conditions: (i) The petitioners-accused Nos. 4 and 5 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing each a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jammalamadugu; (ii) The petitioners-accused Nos. 4 and 5 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm till filing of charge sheet; 6 (iii) The petitioners-accused Nos. 4 and 5 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned; (iv) The petitioners-accused Nos. 4 and 5 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future; (v) The petitioners-accused Nos. 4 and 5 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required; (vi) The petitioners-accused Nos. 4 and 5 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; and 10. The criminal petition is accordingly partly allowed. ________________________ Dr. Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:15-09-2025, JSK 7 HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9303 OF 2025 DATE: 15-09-2025 JSK