IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9471 OF 2025 Between: Purlasetti Vijay Kumar, S/o. Nagaraju, age-20 years, Caste by ST, R/o. at Greed Gardens, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. .... Petitioners/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Maharanipeta PS, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Guntur District. ... Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS and u/s 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C is filed, 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 petitioners on Bail in connection with Crime No. 109 of 2025 on the file of the Maharanipeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI BANDI PRAVEENA Advocate for the Petitioner, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent and the Court made the following. ORDER /HC010481572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9471/2025 Between: Purlasetti Vijay Kumar ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.BANDI PRAVEENA 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 BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail in Crime No. 109# of 2025 of Maharanipeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 109(1) and 115(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the case of the prosecution are that on 30.07.2025 at about 17:00 hours, at Prahlada Kalyana Mandapam Shopping Complex. Dandu Bazar Road, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam, the complainant, who works as a car painter at a shop near the Prahlada Kalyana Mandapam was attacked. The complainant’s younger brother, Siva Sagar, is an auto-rickshaw driver. Following frequent disputes, Siva Sagar and his wife, Lakshmi, separated. Thereafter, Lakshmi entered into a live-in relationship with another man. Over the past month. Lakshmi had allegedly been posting obscene photographs of the complainant’s wife on Instagram. A police complaint was filed in this regard, and Lakshmi was subsequently warned by the complainant. On 30.07.2025, two unidentified men attacked the complainant at his shop, causing serious injuries, including swelling above his right eye, a head injury, and profuse bleeding from the nose. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr.Bandi Praveena, 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 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 while granting bail to the Petitioner. may impose 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 custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioner would not violate it; and it js 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 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 th© investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. 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: 7. The allegations against the petitioner/Accused No.2 is that he along with the other accused indulged in fisting the defacto complainant several times. As a result, the complainant suffered grievous injuries. Section of law was altered to Section 118(2) of ‘the BNS’. The petitioner surrendered 30.07.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 50 days. The petitioner is permanent resident of Marripalem, Visakahapatnam. He has got fixed abode. So far, seven witnesses are examined. Major portion of investigation is completed. on CONCLUSION: Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention 8. 5 undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner bail with the following stringent conditions: on The petitioner/Accused No.Sshall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), with two sureties each for the like each to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. I. sum 'V, iii. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the learned II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. IV. The petitioner/Accused No.2 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. v. vi. The petitioner/Accused No.2 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. 6 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. SD/-B.PRASAD RAO ASSISTANTr\REGtSTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The M Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Visakhapatnam. , 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison. Visakhapatnam. 3. The Station House Officer, Maharanipeta 4. One CC to SRI. BANDI PS, Visakhapatnam. PRAVEENA Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. One spare copy ksr HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED: 18/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.9471 of 2025 ALLOWED X Si milh n SEP m fc.