APHC010492812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9730/2025 Between: 1. K. NARESH, S/O. KILARI ADI NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT. 35 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. D.NO. 2/44, PEDDA JALALAPURAM, SINGANAMALA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. P SRAVAN KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed, under Sections 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioner-accused No. 1 seeking for granting of pre-arrest bail to him in crime No. 14 of 2024 of Singanamala Police Station, Ananthapuram District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 26-01-2024 at about 6 p.m. at Peddajalapuram Village of Singanamala Mandal, accused Nos. 1 to 7 picked up quarrel with de facto complainant and his family members. All the accused beat de facto complainant and his family members with stones and caused injuries to de facto complainant, his wife and his son. The accused also threatened de facto complainant and his family members that they would see their end. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri P.Sravan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 3 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses yet to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides.I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: 4 “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. A learned single judge of this Court by order dated 03-07-2025 in Criminal Petition No. 5496 of 2025 granted pre-arrest bail to accused Nos. 2 to 7. The FIR was lodged in the month of January, 2024. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No. 1. De facto complainant in his statement to police levelled omnibus allegations against all the accused. There are no specific allegations levelled against the present petitioner or any other petitioner that which accused beat de facto complainant with which weapon on which part of the body. The petitioner-accused No. 1 is standing on the similar footing of accused Nos. 2 to 7. So far, for witnesses are examined. Substantial portion of investigation is completed except filing of charge sheet. Wound certificate has already been filed, wherein it was mentioned that de facto complainant suffered grievous injury. Section 118 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was added. If some stringent conditions are imposed on the petitioner- accused No. 1, ends of justice would be sub-served. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused No. 1, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to him with the following stringent conditions: 5 (i) In the event of arrest, the petitioner-accused No. 1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of arresting officials; (ii) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm till filing of charge sheet; (iii) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future; (iv) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required; (v) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and (vi) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 6 10. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. _______________________ Dr.Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 26-09-2025, JSK 7 HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9730 OF 2025 DATE: 26-09-2025 JSK