APHC010478242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. MORIMISETTY PANDU, S/O MORIMISETTYVENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC BUNISESS R/O 1 DHARAMAVARAM ROAD, KOTHACHERUVU VILLAGE SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI 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 enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9434 OF 2025 MORIMISETTY PANDU, S/O MORIMISETTYVENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC BUNISESS R/O 1 DHARAMAVARAM ROAD, KOTHACHERUVU VILLAGE SATHYA SAI ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 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 ‘the BNSS’ enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.30 on bail in Crime No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO MORIMISETTY PANDU, S/O MORIMISETTYVENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC BUNISESS R/O 1-195, DHARAMAVARAM ROAD, KOTHACHERUVU VILLAGE SATHYA SAI ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Public Prosecutor ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS’), seeking to on bail in Crime No.42 of 2025 of 2 Kothacheruvu Police Station, Sathya Sai District registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.30 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 117(1), 119(1), 118(1), 109(1), 74, 326(1), 329(3) read with 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 17.01.2025, the Accused formed into unlawful assembly and came to the construction side of the defacto complainant in two Innova vehicles and Accused attacked the defacto complainant with deadly weapons and caused grievous injuries. Hence the above case. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri S. Rama Lakshmana Reddy, 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 them 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 his dependents. 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 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 so far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the 3 allegations are of a nature that do not warrant further custodial detention, 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.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still 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. 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 progress of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioner do not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and 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: 4 “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the Petitioner/ Accused No.30, as seen from the record is that his role has come out basing on the confession of the co- accused. Accused No.1 is the brother of Accused No.30. The learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hindupur had enlarged the Petitioner on bail with a condition to appear before the Station House Officer, Kothacheruvu P.S on first and third Saturday of a Month in between 9.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m for a period of three months or filing of Charge Sheet, whichever is earlier. The Petitioner on the first Saturday of August-2025 i.e 02.08.2025 did not appeared before the Station House Officer concerned as per the version of the prosecution. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner though he appeared before the Police concerned, they did not allow him to sign in the book of the Police Station intentionally. 10. Learned Trial Court observed that in the attendance paper, attested by S.H.O. Kothacheruvu Police Station endorsed that the Petitioner had not attended on first Saturday. Therefore, he was shown as ‘absent’. Learned Trial Court further observed that if really, the Petitioner appeared before the Police Station concerned and the Police resist him from signing in the attendance sheet, nothing prevented him to appear before the Court on immediate Saturday to file an application for relaxation or modification of the 5 conditions imposed by the learned Trial Court to show his bonafides. It was further observed that the Petitioner could have approached the learned Trial Court on the very Saturday when he was resisted by the Police from signing on the attendance sheet to show his attendance before them. Not making any of the attempts by the Petitioner would clearly show that the Petitioner had not at all complied with the conditions imposed by the learned Trial Court. 11. Learned Trial Court also specifically observed that the Petitioner had not mentioned in his Counter, dated 21.08.2025 filed before the learned Trial Court whether he had attended on 16.08.2025 i.e third Saturday of that Month. This callous attitude of the Petitioner cannot be count enhanced. 12. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are nearly 29 cases against the Accused No.30 in Andhra Pradesh; in Uttar Pradesh- 8 cases; in Karnataka-4 cases; in Delhi-1 case; in Telangana State-1 one case; in Maharastra- 1 case, in Tamilnadu-1 case; in Bihar-1 case and Chhattisgarh -1 case. The Petitioner/ Accused No.30 is an interstate offender. He has given due representation of his offences in all the above mentioned States. CONCLUSION: 13. Considering the conduct and attitude of the Petitioner and his disobedience to the orders passed by the learned Trial Court, this Court does not find any merit to interfere with that order and enlarge the Petitioner. There are no merits in the Criminal Petition and same is liable to be dismissed. 6 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed for the present. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 19.09.2025 KK