APHC010485862025 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: 9577/2025 Between: Sarasamma Alias Potu Saraswathi, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused Nos.7 to 11, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.16 of 2025 of Thalluru Police Station, Prakasam District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 103, 115(2), 49 read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘the BNS’). 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.03.2025 at 05:00 hours, at Sivarampuram Village, Thalluru Mandal, a violent incident occurred arising out of a pre-existing land dispute between the family of the complainant and the accused group. The matter was formally reported to the police station at 13:00 hours, pursuant to hospital intimation and the statement of the complainant, Smt. Potu Chiranjeevi.On the preceding night, i.e., on 21.03.2025 at around 21:00 hours, accused persons viz., Potu Seethaiah (A1), Potu Venkatarao (A2), Kotaiah (A3), Srinu (A4), Venkatarao (A5), and others, in furtherance of a common intention, picked up a quarrel with Potu Srinu, a relative of the complainant. Upon witnessing the altercation, the complainant, her husband Veeranjaneyulu, and one Kotaiah intervened to rescue Potu Srinu. During the said intervention, accused persons physically assaulted Kotaiah, causing a bleeding injury to his head. Thereafter, the complainant and her husband were also assaulted by the accused using hands and legs. 3. Subsequently, in the early hours of 22.03.2025, the accused persons, bearing prior enmity and with premeditated intent, summoned additional individuals, namely Potu Pedda Gopi (A6), Sarasamma (A7), Adilakshmi (A8), Narayanamma (A9), Nandini (A10), Jyothi (A11), Pothu Raju (A12), Kittaiah (A13), and Rathamma (A14). All fourteen accused persons, in furtherance of a common object, unlawfully entered the complainant’s residence and assaulted Eswaramma, the complainant’s daughter-in-law. During the said attack, 3 accused No.6/Potu Pedda Gopi inflicted grievous injuries upon Veeranjaneyulu by striking his head with an iron rod, resulting in profuse bleeding and loss of consciousness. The accused further assaulted him on other parts of the body. Following the incident, the complainant, with assistance from her relatives, shifted her husband Veeranjaneyulu to Sneha Hospital, Ongole, and subsequently to Upas Hospital, Ongole, for advanced medical treatment. As the injured Veeranjaneyulu remained unconscious, the complainant furnished her statement to the police, requesting initiation of legal proceedings. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 4. Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners have not committed any offence. They were falsely implicated in this case. They are ready to abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court. It is further argued that prior to the present alleged incident, the Petitioners were attacked by the complainant and others, a report was lodged in connection with that attack, but FIR was registered as a case in Cr.No.17/2025 after registration of the present FIR. The prime Accused No.6 was enlarged on regular bail. All the Petitioners are women, residents of Prakasam District, went to see Accused Nos.1 to 3, who were hospitalized in Vijayawada because of the attack of the complainant and her other followers. There was no pre-planed thought or action on the part of the accused, it was a sudden provocation, Accused No.6 gave a blow on Veeranjaneyulu resulting 4 his death later. It is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.7 to 11. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail stating that investigation is not completed. If the petitioners are enlarged on pre-arrest bail, they would not be available for the investigation, and they will repeat the same offence. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further contends that after the death of Veeranjaneyulu Section of law from 109 of ‘the BNS.,’ was altered to 103(1) of ‘the BNS’. LWs.1 to 7 are eyewitnesses. LW.2 is also an injured witness. After the death of Veeranjaneyulu, LWs.1 to 4 were re-examined. LWs.3 & 4 who are not only direct eyewitnesses but also injured witnesses specifically stated about the abetment of the Petitioners encouraging Accused No.6 to kill the deceased and the Petitioners further beat the deceased and LW.2 as well. It is further contended that confession of Accused No.6 also indicates the names and specific overt acts committed by the Petitioners and their presence at the scene of offence. Lodging of FIR in Cr.No.17/2025 by the accused-party was only an afterthought. Grant of regular bail to Accused No.6 is not a ground to grant pre-arrest bail to the present Petitioners. It is urged to dismiss the bail application. 5 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 8. 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 Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. This is the second bail application filed by the petitioners. In the earlier Crl.P. No. 8505 of 2025, dated 29.08.2025, this Court did not incline to grant any relief and dismissed the petition. In this second application also, there are no merits. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, as per the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, liberty is granted to the petitioners to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and move an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned. The learned Jurisdictional Court concerned is directed to dispose of the said application in accordance with law, on its own merits by giving due and sufficient opportunity to the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, and pass 6 appropriate orders within a reasonable time, as far as possible preferably in two (02) days. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 22.09.2025 S D P 7 562 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9577 of 2025 Date:22.09.2025 S D P