APHC010489282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9668 OF 2025 Between: 1. CHETTIRLA KAMAL CHAND, S/O CHETRULLA RAMU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O 1-485, KUSUMAHARIJANAWADA, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. CHEMMANDI SAI KAMAL, S/O VIGNESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O 2-7-14, KOTHA PETA STREET, NAWAB PETA, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. GANGULA VENKATA MAHESH BABU, S/O GANGULA VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O 28-4-160, VISWA SANTHI NAGAR, MYPADU ROAD, PRASANTHI NAGAR, STONEHOUSEKPET, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. CHIRIVELLA MANOJ KUMAR, S/O CHIRIVELLA MADHAVA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O 3/1244, NAGENDRA NAGAR, NAWABPET, STONEHOUSEPET, NEIIORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings, Nelapadu, Guntur. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. MEDARA SIVA 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 BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 to 7for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.162 of 2025 of Nellore Rural Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections191(2), 191(3), 333, 109, 324(4), 118(1), 115(2) read with 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that 3 years prior to 13.04.2025 Accused No.1 and 2 borrowed an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the defacto complainant. While so on 13.04.2025 the defacto complainant asked Accused No.1 and 2 for repayment of the amount. In that connection some quarrel took place in between them. Accused No.1 with a view to do away the life of the defacto complainant and her husband, engaged Accused No.4 and others, on the same day at 19.00 hrs Accused No.1 to 3 went to the house of the defacto complainant and voluntarily picked up quarrel with them. In the meanwhile Accused No.4 along with other 10 to 15 members came there in a car and attacked the defacto complainant with sticks, iron rods, knifes and stones and caused multiple head injuries. Hence, the case was registered against the petitioner/accused. 3. Sri M. Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant proceedings and asserts that no offence, as alleged in the complaint, has been committed by them. It is contended that the Petitionersare the sole breadwinner of their family, and any coercive action, including arrest, would result in grave and irreparable hardship to his dependent family members.It is further submitted that the Petitionersare law-abiding citizens with a permanent place of residence and is willing to comply with any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioners undertake to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assures the Court of his continued presence as and when required. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitionersalso submits that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and that custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioners have already extended full cooperation to the Investigating Officer and there exists no reasonable apprehension of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence and it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused Nos. 4 to 7, in the interest of justice and equity. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Sri NeelotpalGanji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and sensitive stage, and that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is indispensable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioners on pre-arrest bail at this juncture would seriously impede the investigative process, as there exists a grave apprehension that the Petitioners may not extend requisite cooperation and may attempt to evade the due process of law. 6. The prosecution further contends that the Petitioners, if granted the relief sought, may exert undue influence upon material witnesses or tamper with incriminating evidence, thereby vitiating the integrity of the investigation and obstructing the course of justice. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential prejudice to a fair and impartial inquiry, it is prayed that the instant application be dismissed in the interest of justice and to safeguard the sanctity of the investigative process. 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 Petitionersare entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. There are no allegations levelled against the Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 4 to 7 in the report lodged by the defacto complainant. She levelled omnibus allegations against the Accused Nos. 2 and 3 that they beat the defacto complainant with iron rods, sticks and causing bleeding injuries. However, the defacto complainant and her husband only suffered simple injuries as per Wound Certificate issued by the Medical Officer concerned. In the record, the role of the Accused Nos. 4 to 7 had come out based on confession of the Accused No.8. The Petitioners are permanent residence of Kusuma Haraijanawada, Nawabpeta, Stonehousepet, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District respectively. They have got fixed abode. So far, 10 witnesses have been examined. Major portion of the investigation in so far as alleged role of the Petitioners is concerned is completed. Chances of the Petitioners either threatening the witnesses or tampering the evidence or hampering the investigation may not arise. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 4 to 7. CONCLUSION: 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of arrest of the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 to 7, they shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 to 7 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 to 7 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 to 7 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 to 7 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 to 7 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passports, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 23.09.2025 KK THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9668 OF 2025 23.09.2025 KK