APHC010475842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9433/2025 Between: Shanivarapu Thirupathi Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. TURAGA SAI SURYA 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 petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.198 of 2025 of Giddalur Urban Police Station, Giddaluru Mandal, Prakasam District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offences 2 punishable under Section 109(1) r/w 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 17.07.2025 at around 14:00 hours at Podalakunda Palli Village, Giddalur Mandal, the complainant reported that his grand-father owned 6 acres of land. This land was equally divided between the complainant's father and Accused No.1, and a borewell was installed on the land. After a few years, Accused No.1 began to argue occasionally with the complainant’s parents and refused to allow them access to the borewell water. Approximately seven years ago, disputes arose between the parties, resulting in a police case. However, the village elders intervened, held a panchayati, admonished both sides, and advised them to use the borewell water on alternate days. Although they initially followed this arrangement, they eventually stopped doing so and ceased using the borewell altogether. Subsequently, on the night of 16.07.2025 at around 23:00 hours, while the complainant’s parents were asleep at home, Accused Nos.1 and 2 allegedly went to the complainant’s house with the intention of killing them. Accused No.1 beat the mother of complainant with an iron rod on her head indiscriminately and she received grievous injuries and fell unconscious state of mind. Then the accused Nos.1 and 2 took the mother of complainant inside of the house and locked the door. Later, accused Nos.1 and 2 put the towel into the father of complainant mouth and beat with iron rod (plowshare) on his 3 head, on his stomach, chest and caused injuries. On knowing it their villagers came there and rescued the parents of complainant and took them to Government Hospital, Giddalur for treatment in ambulance. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr.T.Sai Surya, 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 to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioner. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of his 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 custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, petitioner 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 4 underway and several material witnesses are yet 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. It 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 integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioner 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. 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. The allegations against the petitioner/Accused No.2 are that he, along with the other accused, attempted to take away the lives of the victims. He was arrested on 21.07.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 59 days. Only 10 witnesses have been examined so far, with several more remaining to be examined. The wound certificate is yet to be received. L.W.2 5 has leveled specific overt acts against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 59 days. The investigation is at nascent stage. At this juncture, request of the petitioner for enlarging him on bail is not convincing and reasonable. 9. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to consider request of petitioner for enlarging the petitioner on bail. 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: 22.09.2025 S D P 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9433 of 2025 Date:22.09.2025 S D P