INTHE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHIVIANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9543 OF 2025 Betwee n : 1. Bathineni Viswanath Naidu, S/o Lakshminarayana, age 39 yrs Resident of KattakindapaIIi village, Bathalapalli Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.(A1 ) 2. Gujjala Kalyan, S/o Gujjala Eswaraiah, age 30 yrs, Resident of D.No.2- 535, Suryachandrapuram village, BathalapaIIi MandaI, Ananthapuramu District. (A2) 3. SakeNarendra, S/o Sake Kullayappa, age 28 yrs Resident of D.No.3- 25, Narasapuram Village Narpala MandaI, Ananthapuramu District. (A3) 4. ChaIIa RaJ-eSh, S/o C. Pulla Naidu, age 35 yrs. Resident of D.No.14- 396, Murthypalli village, Kadiri Town, NatI-Ve Of Chinnekuntapalli village Bathalapalli Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.(A4) 5. Maddimani Chandrasekhara, s/o chandrayudu, age 44 yrs. Resident of D.No.4-30, MuddanapaIIi village, Bathalapalli Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. (A5) 6. Kayala Narayana swamy, s/o Late Obulesu, age 59 yrs. Resident of D.No.2-38, SiddannagaripaIIi vl-llage, Mudigubba MandaI, Sri Sathya Sai District(A6) I I .; :t-hat. - '.?`.1€L I.i AND Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 6 The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Rep. by its public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh ... Respondent/defacto complainant Petition under section 480 & 483 of BNSS is filed, praying that I-n t'he circumstances stated in the affidavit filed I'n Support Of the Criminal Petition, the HI'gh Court may be pleased to e.nlarge the petitllOnerS/Accused No.1 to 6 on regular bail I-n Crime No.110/2025 of Bathalapalli Police Station, Sathya Saj District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed I-n Support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI N RANGA REDDY Advocate for the petl-tioners, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent and the court made the following. ORDER I. I.` LJ Crl..P.No.9543 cJ Dc]ted 19.09.i THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its public Prosecutor High court ofAndhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the petl-tioner/accused(s): N RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER-. The Crjmjnal petI-tl'On has been filed under sections 437 and 439 of the code of crlminaI Procedure,1973 (for brevI-ty {the Cr.P.C.I)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023 (for brevity tthe BNSSJ), seeking tO enlarge the petitIOnerS/Accused Nos.1 to 6 on ba" ln cr.No.110 of 2025 of Bathalapalll' police Station, srI' Sathya sai District, reg,-stered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 herein for the offences punlshable under sections 109 (1),118 (1), 324 (4) read with 3(5) of the BharatI-ya Nyaya Sanhlta, 2023 (for PrevI®ty lthe BNS'). 2. The case of the prosecutIOn [s that the incident occurred on 24.08.2025 at about 7.00 p.m. near the ZPH School gate, Nallaboy,'napalli village, Bathalapallj MandaJ, and was reported at the poll'ce station on the same day at 10 30 p m. Accused Nos.1 to 6 +I.-. ' `_< .2, I-J. ---' i-`L Dr. YLR, J CrI.P.No.9543 of 2025 Dated 19_09.2025 allegedly obstructed the complainant while he was travelling from NaIIaboyinapalli to Bathalapalli in his Car bearing No. APO2CD4444, along with his friend, Samba Sivudu @ Musturu Samba of Edulamustur Village. The accused, armed with iron rods and sickles, damaged the glasses of the complainant'S car, pulled him out, and assaulted him with iron rods with an .intent to eliminate him. When his friend, Samba Sivudu, tried .to rescue him, the, accused -also assaulted him with iron 1 rods and sickles. On witnessing the incident, local persons intervened and rescued the injured. As a result, both the complainant and his friend sustained severe bleeding inJ-urieS and Were later Shifted tO RDT Hospital, Bathalapalli MandaI, for treatment. The motive for the attack is stated to be ill-feelings between the complainant and Accused No.1 arising out of a hand loan taken by the complainant from Accused.No.1 a long time ago. 3. Sri N.Ranga Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the petitioners are the innocent of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated by the police. lt is further submitted that the petitioners are the sole earning members of the family and, they are ready to abide any conditions th'at may be imposec] by this Court, and it is urged to grant bail to the petitioners. t.=-,I ~9 . i Crl.P-No.9543\ Dated 19.09. 4. Per cor7fra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to grant of bail to the petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioners are released on bail, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition t) be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the report lodged by the de-facto complainant, who himself is a rowdy-sheeter, and from the record, it is alleged that on 24.08.2025 at about 7.00 p.m., while the complainant and his friend, Samba Sivudu, were proceeding to Bathalapalli from their village in a car and reached near the ZPH School, all the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 stopped the car and damaged it with iron rods and sickles. Thereafter, Accused Nos.1 and 2 allegedly beat the complainant with rods, dragged him outside, and caused bleeding injuries. When Samba Sivudu came to the rescue of the-compiainant, all the acoused beat him as well, causing bleeding inJ'urieS. As per the wound certificates \ \. i? i_---.--- / |\ 1 Dr. YLR, J CrI.P.No.9543 of 2025 Dclted 19.09.2025 submitted along with the petition, L.W.1, the de-facto complainant, suffered a simple injury, whereas L.W.2 sustained a grievous injury. So far, six witnesses have been examined. The petitioners were arrested on 26.08.2025 and have been in judicial custody for the past 28 days. 7. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, and the investigation, insofar as it relates to them, is still in progress, this Court is not I-nClined tO grant bail to them. Therefore, the request of the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 is not found convincing or reasonable, and the petition stands dismissed. 8. lnsofar as the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 are concerned, there are only omnibus allegations leveled agaI-nSt them. Compared to the gravity and nature of the allegations leveled against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, the allegations against the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 are of a milder nature, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6. 9. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed with the following conditions: \--|,,.-_. _` ._± =. =E= iii. lV- V. \ Crl.P_No.9543 c Dclted 19.09.` The petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 shall be enlarged on bail subject to they executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each With one surety for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dharmavaram. The petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 shall appear * before th; station House Officer concerned On every saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet. The petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the station House Officer concerned. petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. The petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. ` -i- i;'rf5-- Vl. Dr. YLR,J Crl.P.No.9543 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 The petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 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. g;Spjo,fco K.SR§#+€VA+SA RAIJU AS S : g£TAN-ifhiF:=E-gr++T L#`rftyR -if fi .., . //TRUE COPY// s E*-i_T! f~jEid a) F F '5a=j t=1= F`?i To, 1. The JFCM Dharmavaram, Satya Sai District. 2. The Superintendent, Distr'lct Jail, Ananthapuram. 3. The SHO, Bathapalli Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District. 4. One CC to SRl. N RANGA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.[OUT] 6. One spare copy ksr r! 3 Hj'iP EIZ5 HIGH COURT DR.YLRJ DATED: 19/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.9543 of 2025 ALLOWED