IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMB TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9373 OF 2025 Between : Sunkara Venkatesu, S/o.Sivaiah Aged 26 years, Occ Hamali Worker R/o.D.No.6/95, Maruti Street, Kadapa YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh Petitioner/Accused-4 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor Cyber Crime Police Station Visakhapatnam City, AP 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 release the petitioner/A-4 on bail in FIR No.147/2025 on the file of the Taluq Police Station, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh pending enquiry COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI. GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR `. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER APHCO10474772025 • ERE + IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMA'NA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9373 OF 2025 [3521] Betwee n : 1.SUNKARA VENKATESU, S/O.SIVAIAH AGED 26 YEARS, OCC HAMALI WORKER R/O.D.NO.6/95, MARUTI STREET, KADAPA YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH m.PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor Cyber Crime Police Station Visakhapatnam City, AP ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order : The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity fthe BNSS'), seeking,to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.4 on bail in Crime No.147 of 2O25 of Taluq Police Station, YSR Kadapa District registered against the petitioner/Accused No.4 for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) read with 3(5), 61 (2) of Bhara{iya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. `<- l _---I .,r Fj== CASE OF THE PROSECUTIO 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint stating that about one year back her husband was borrowed an amount of Rs. 30,000/- from one chappidi chinnodu and after some time he demanded her husband to repay the said amount. Therefore, there was an alteroatI'On between them ando later I't Was compromised. Since then, the petitioner herein used to threaten him whever he finds hI'm and On 22.04.2025 at about ll.00 a.m her husband left hI'S home for daily labour work and he did not return in time and at about 8.40 p.m on the same day one Sameer nearby resident informed her that her husband was stabbed near built up circle and he is lying in pool of blood with injuries and he was shifted him to RIMS Hospital after examination, declared him dead at ll.00 p.m. Hence the above case. CONTENTIONS OFTHE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri G. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking him to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the PetitI'Oner I-S the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to his dependents. The `| Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditl-on that this court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. `-_.-_ p i- 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioner has 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 further custodial detention, and if any condl'tion is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioner would not violate it; and it js urged to allow the Petition. ARGUIV[ENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per cor7fra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is stl-II underway and several material witnesses are to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the Petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. lt is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the Petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the progress of the investigation, I'{ is submitted that the Petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of 6 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 recorc!. \~ _ _ 'r 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 bail?" ANALYSIS: 8. This is second bail application filed by the Petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner/ Accused No.4 is that he gave a lift to Accused 1 and 2 in his scooty, after the Accused No.1 and 2 allegedly murdered the deceased. This Court on 30.08.2025 dismissed the bail application. Later on 04.09.2025, learned lV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa enlarged the Accused No.3 on bail in Crl.M.P.No.377 of 2025, dated 04.09.2025. Thus there are change of circumstances. The Petitioner was arrested on 22.04.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 158 days. The Petitioner has got permanent abode. He is permanent resident of Maruti Street, Kadapa. Charge Sheet was also filed. Therefore, the.chance of the Petitioner tampering the evidence or threatened the witnesses or hampering the investigation may not arise. CONCLUSION: .I 9. Considering the nature and gravity of a[[egation.levelled against the Petitioner, his allegec! role played in this case, and the period of detention unciergone by the'Petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail with the following stringemt conditions: -_-==ir-i:i.. \---I i. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to hI'S executing a bond for a Sum Of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thou'sand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. I-i. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall appear before the learned the Trial Court on each and every adjournment without fal.I- iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not leave the liml'ts of the District without prior permission from the station House Officer concerned. iv. The Petitioner/Accused No:4 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required, vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 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. vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not ._- have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAJU //TRUE COPY// "in To, 1. The ll Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District 3. The Stat'lon House officer, Taluq Police Station, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh 4. One CC to SRl. GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofA.P[OUT] 6. One spare copy _` i\ + HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED : 22/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.9373 of 2025 ALLOWED