A®HC01 0492622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI 0? TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9694 of 2025 Between: Reddy, (Accused No.1) S/o. Guwala Pedda Venkata R/o. 1-23, 00 Colony, Chennampalli, 1. G. Manohar Reddy, Aged 40 years, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh-515701. Amarnath Reddy. (Accused No.2) S/o. Guwala Pedda Venkata R/O. 1-23, OC Colony, Chennampalli, 2. G. Reddy, Aged 45 years Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh- 515701. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by SHO, Bukkarayasamudram PS Through the Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh. High Court of AP at Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail in the event of arrest in Cr. No. the file of Bukkarayasamudram Police Station, Anantapur stated in the Memorandum may 125/2025 on District. Counsel for the Petitioners ; MS. A SWARUPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER : f APHC010492622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] r TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9694 OF 2025 Between: 1.G. MANOHAR REDDY, (ACCUSED N0.1) S/0. GUWALA PEDDA VENKATA REDDY AGED 40 YEARS, R/0. 1-23, OC COLONY,CHENNAMPALLI, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-515701 1. 2.G. AMARNATH REDDY,, (ACCUSED N0.2) S/0. GUWALA PEDDA VENKATA REDDY AGED 45 YEARS, R/0. 1-23, OC COLONY,CHENNAMPALLI, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-515701 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ep. by SHO, Bukkarayasamudram PS Through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP at Amaavathi,Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.ASWARUPA REDDY 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.1 and 2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 125 of 2025 of Bukkarayasamudram Police Station, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 11891) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.07.2025 at 8.30 p.m at Chennampalli Village an incident occurred. The Accused Nos. 1 to 10 went to the Shirdi Saibaba Temple, where the defacto complainant and his associates were engaged in decorating the temple in view of the Guru Pournami celebrations. The Accused allegedly obstructed the defacto complainant from proceeding with the Guru Pournami Pooja and attacked the defacto complainant and his associates with sickles and sticks and caused bleeding injuries to the defacto complainant and others. Hence the above case was registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Ms. A. Swarupa Reddy, 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 their dependent family members.lt is further submitted that the Petitionersare law-abiding citizens with a permanent place of condition that this Court may deem The Petitioners undertake to the Court of their residence and is willing to comply with any the grant of anticipatory bail fit and proper for cooperate fully with the ongolhg investigatioh ahd assures continued presence as and when required. submits that there is no Counsel for the Petitionersalso attributable to the Petitioner Learned 4. and that custodial interrogation is neither recovery necessary nor justified ih the facts ahd circumstahces of the present case. The to the Investigating Officer already extended full cooperation Petitioners have and there exists no with the prosecution evidence and it is to grant pre-arrest bail to the reasonable apprehension of their abscohding or tamperihg prayed that this Court may be pleased in the interest of Petitioner/Accused No. 1 and 2, in justice and equity. aqsirtant PUBUCPROSECUTOBI . Mr. Neelotpal Ganjl, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has bail, asserting that the arguments OFTHE Per contra 5. for anticipatory strenuously opposed the prayer investigation is at a nascent and sensitive stage, ahd that custodial for unearthing material facts Petitionersare indispensable the offence. It is submitted interrogation of the that enlargement of the Petitioners on germane to pre-arrest seriously impede the investigative that the Petitioners may not evade the due process of bail at this juncture would , as there exists a grave apprehension process requisite cooperation and may attempt to extend 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: 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?” 8. ANALYSIS: This is second pre-arrest bail application filed by the Petitioners. Earlier in Criminal Petition 7497 of 2025, dated 04.08.2025, while enlarging the Accused Nos. 3 to 7, 15 and 16, for grant of pre-arrest bail against the Petitioners/ Accused No.1 and 2 has been dismissed. As seen from the averments of the F.I.R, Statements of the injured persons, there are specific overt acts attributed against them. LWs 2 and 3 suffered grievous injuries. 9. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in and Sushila Aggarwal v. State anticipatory bail does not amount to a charter cloak of immunity facie cognizable allegations 482 of ‘the BNSS’ is intended to the legitimate course of facie complicit in grave It is well settled in law, as enunciated by Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (NCT of Delhif, that the grant of for commission of serious individuals against whom specific and prime levelled. The relief under Section 10. offences, nor does it serve as a for have been safeguard personal liberty, but not to thwart to protect those who are prime investigation or offences involving overt acts. r.ONCLUSION: in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, coupled with the and gravity of the specific allegations attributed to the Petitioners, this court-finds no iustifiabie ground to exercise discretion under Section 482 of ■the BNSS'. The allegations prime facie disclose a serious offence warranting thorough investigation, and the Petitioners, in the considered opinion of this not merit the relief of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the prayer for 11. nature Court, does pre-arrest bail is rejected. is dismissed. However, as per the request the Petitioners, liberty is granted to the before the learned Judicial (01) week from the date of Hence, this criminal petition is of the learned counsel for petitioners/Accused Magistrate 12. Nos.1 and 2 to surrender of First Class, concerned, within one ^ (1980) 2 see 565 ' (2020) 5 see 1 appropriate application before the learned Court concerned, who shall make endeavor to dispose of the its own merits by providing this order, and move jurisdictional said application in accordance with law, on adequate opportunity to both sides, and pass appropriate orders preferably an \ \ within a period of two (02) days. SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR y. r: //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To First Class (Special Mobile Court), 1. The Judicial Magistrate of Anantapuramu, Anantapur District. 2. The Station House Officer, ' Bukkarayasamudram Police Station Anantapur District. 3. One CC to Ms. A Swarupa Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 4. Two CCS to the Public Amaravathi [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies TK TAC . \ HIGH COURT DATED:23/09/2025 ORDER CRLP No.9694 of 2025 of 2 5 SEP 2025 Current becuon ^ y E? X- C2 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION