APHC010492572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9690/2025 Between: Peddineni Chinna Malakondaiah and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. SHAIK MD UMAR ABDULLAH 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.66 of 2025 of Komarolu Police Station, Prakasam District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 189(3), 191(3), 115(2), 109(1) r/w 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short „the BNS‟). 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that there is unlawful assembly, rioting, armed with deadly weapons, and attempt to commit murder that occurred on 30.07.2025 at 18.00 hours in the fields of Gonepalli Village, Komarole Mandal. The complainant on 01.08.2025 at 6.00 hours reported that his father and his relative-Peddineni Ramanaiah, owned 1.5 acres of land situated in the fields of Gonepalli Village, which was later divided between them. The complainant had 0.75 cents of the land. After Remanaiah‟s death, Lakshmi Devi, the wife of Ramanaiah, sold the said land to the accused No.1.. On 30.07.2025 at 18.00 hours, accused No.1 ploughed the disputed land with a tractor without the knowledge of the complainant. Upon learning this, the complainant and his family members came to the scene and tried to stop them. However, accused Nos.1 to 7 formed an unlawful assembly armed with rods, knives, and sticks. They assaulted the complainant and his family members with the intent to kill them, resulting in several injuries. Later, witnesses arrived and shifted the complainant to Area Hospital, Giddalur, and from there he was taken to Sreshta Hospital, Guntur, for better treatment. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 3. Mr.Shaik Md Umar Abdulla, 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 Petitioners are the sole earning 3 members of their families, and their arrest would cause irreparable hardship to their dependents. The Petitioners are 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.1 to 7. 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 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. 4 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. As seen from the FIR lodged by the defacto complainant that there are specific overt acts attributed against the accused Nos.2, 3 and 6. L.Ws.1 to 4 have suffered grievous injuries in the hands of accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 allegedly. 10. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3 and 6, this Court is not inclined to grant pre- arrest bail to them. Hence, the petition against the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 is dismissed. In so far as the other petitioners/accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7 concerned, there are only omnibus allegations levelled against by them by the defacto complainant and other witnesses. 11. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7 inasmuch as the 5 petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7 are resident of Gone Palle, Prakasam District and Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District and they got fixed abode, and so far nine witnesses are examined and all are eye-witnesses, and the material portion of investigation is completed, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are no similar adverse antecedents against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7. CONCLUSION: 12. In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed dismissing the petition against the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 6/accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 while granting pre-arrest bail to petitioner Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7/accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7, with the following stringent conditions: i. In the event of their arrest, the petitioner Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7/accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7 shall be enlarged on bail subject to they executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each, with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The petitioner Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7/accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required; iii. The petitioner Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7/accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; 6 iv. The petitioner Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7/accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 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 petitioner Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7/accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7 shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The petitioner Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7/accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they does not have passports, they shall submit an affidavits to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 24.09.2025 S D P 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9690 of 2025 Date:24.09.2025 S D P