APHC010483722025 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: 9501/2025 Between: 1. CHINNARI MALLIKARJUNA @ MALLI, S/O.C.GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, HARIJANAWADA, TADIPATRI TOWN, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Through SHO, Tadipatri P.S., Ananthapuramu District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioner-accused No. 8 seeking to enlarge him on bail in crime No. 166 of 2025 of Tadipathri Town Police Station, Ananthapuram District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 103 (1) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 14-07-2025 at about 10 p.m., in front of the house of one Jagadeshwar Reddy, Kalvagadda Street, Tadipatri Town, accused No. 1 and some others came on two motorcycles, attacked and hacked one Hareesh @ Harsha and caused multiple lacerated injuries over the head and all over his body. The injured was immediately shifted to Government Area Hospital, Tadipatri, and from there to Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu, where the duty doctor examined the injured and declared as brought dead. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned counsel, representing M/s. CKR Associates, 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. 3 4. Learned counsel further submits that the entire allegations are against accused No. 10 only. The petitioner-accused No. 8 has not indulged in any kind of activity. He has been in judicial custody for the past 53 days. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of 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 allegations are of a nature that do not warrant further custodial detention, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Sri Neelothpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses 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. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that only ten witnesses are examined so far. There are CDRs in between accused No. 1 and accused No. 10 at the relevant point of time. There are three eyewitnesses who spoke about the occurrence of the 4 alleged offence and urged to dismiss the petition as there are video footages about the involvement of the petitioner and other accused. 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 petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. Case of the prosecution, as seen from the record, is that accused No. 1, prime accused, asked accused No. 10 to arrange some hired assassins to do away the deceased. Accused No. 10 engaged accused Nos. 2 to 9 for that work. Accused Nos. 2 to 9 are the followers of accused No. 10. Accused No. 1 and the deceased earlier got disputes and animosity. There are CDRs in between accused No. 1 and accused No. 10 at the relevant point of time. The petitioner-accused No. 8 voluntarily stated before the investigating officer on being shown video footages at the relevant point of time, wherein the petitioner-accused No. 8 was also found along with other accused, that he identified himself as the person in the video footages besides informed the investigating officer that the persons found in the video footages are the other accused. So far, ten witnesses are examined. Investigation is at the nascent stage. Some more witnesses are to be examined. L.Ws.5 to 7 are direct eyewitnesses who supported the statement of de facto complainant. The 5 petitioner-accused No. 8 was arrested on 01-08-2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 53 days only. Some more incriminating material is to be collected in the course of investigation. Enlarging the petitioner on bail at this juncture would hamper the process of investigation. Further, it would also create a sharp grief stricken situation to the victims. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused No. 8, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner-accused No. 8 on bail. There are no merits in the petition at present and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________________ Dr. Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 22-09-2025, JSK 6 HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9501 OF 2025 DATE: 22-09-2025 JSK