APHC010487322025 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: 9587/2025 Between: K Naveen and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. GADDA MARIYARAJU 2. Gadda Mariyaraju 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 BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.7 & 12, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.50 of 2025 of Ramasamudram Police Station, Annamayya District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 2 191(3), 126(2), 109(1), 118(1), 115(2), 61(2) and 351(2) read with 149 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short „the BNS‟). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused were working as coolies in Bangalore. Gorrela Gangadhar and his wife, Gayathri, were also working under accused No.1. After Gayathri went missing with her younger son, a complaint was lodged and she was traced by the police and handed over to her husband. Suspending accused No.1‟s involvement in his wife‟s disappearance, Gangadhar informed village elders, and a panchayat was called. During the panchayat, accused No.1 allegedly abused and assaulted Gangappa. Later, accused No.2 (Krishnamurthy, sone of accused No.1) and others reportedly went to Yerraboina Village, threatened the villagers, and created panic. Although a compromise was made on 07.06.2025, later that night at about 10.30 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 15 allegedly restrained the vehicles of the complainant‟s family and attacked them with rods, sticks, and sickles, causing bleeding injuries. The injured were shifted to Madanpalle Government Hospital. Later, as the defacto complainant brother and his son/Yeswanth suffering from serious injuries they were shifted to NIMHANAS Hospital, Bangalore for better treatment. Basing on the said report of the complainant police registered a crime. 3 CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 3. Mr. G.Mariyaraju, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitionersare the sole earning member of their families, and their arrest would cause irreparable hardship to their dependents. The Petitionersare willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioners have got fixed abode. 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioners and custodial interrogation period was over and such custody is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.7 and 12. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the 4 Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that they may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 6. It is further urged that the Petitioners may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the integrity of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire 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 Court on 22.08.2025 in Crl.P.No.7989 of 2025 while allowing the request of the other accused and rejected the request of the present petitioners to grant anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused Nos.1 to 6, 9 to 11 were already arrested and released on bail. This Court does not deem it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. 5 10. In view of these circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail, as it would amount to providing a shield or protection to a person against who specific overt acts attributed with a report of Vigilance Department. Grant of pre-arrest bail is not a license for the commission of cognizable and non-bailable offences, as per the decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab 1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)2.Hence, there are no merits in the petition. 11. 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 both including the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, and pass 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 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 2(2020) 5 SCC 1 6 98 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9587 of 2025 Date:22.09.2025 S D P