APHC010499532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9816/2025 Between: 1. T PAVAN ALIAS PATRA PAVAN(A2), S/O PATRA CHANDRA SEKHAR, AGED 39 YEARS OCC EX CRPF CONSTABLE RESIDENT OF RAJEEVAGANDHINAGAR, KADIRI TOWN, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT AMMACHERUVU MITTA MADANAPALLI TOWN, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. N RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner- accused No. 2on bail in crime No. 293 of 2025 of Kadiri Town Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 127 (2), 109, 118 (1) and 115 (2) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 17-08-2025 at 11.45 p.m., in front of SreeAyyappa Swamy Temple, Sivalayam back street, Kadiri Town, accused Nos. 1 to 4 went to the house of de facto complainant, called him out, picked up quarrel, wrongfully confined him and beat him with hands and legs by stating that he was talking with wife of accused No. 1 and took him to the wife of accused No. 1. Then, accused Nos. 1 beat de facto complainant with a stick on his neck and caused swelling injury. Accused No. 2 took a stone slab and tried to throw on de facto complainant but he escaped. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 beat de facto complainant indiscriminately with hands and legs and caused injuries. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. SriN.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocentand 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 breadwinnerof his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the 3 petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. 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.The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation so far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings.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, Sri NeelothpalGanji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of 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 bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 4 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: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the petitioner-accused No. 2 is that he was beside accused No. 1. He took up a stone nearby and tried to kill de facto complainant. Accused No. 2 threw a stone on the head of de facto complainant but de facto complainant avoided hitting of that stone. Though accused No. 2 contributed along with other accused, he has not contributed his mite for causing any injuries to de facto complainant. The petitioner was arrested on 21-08-2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 34 days. Seven witnesses are examined so far. Substantial part of investigation is completed. The petitioner is ex. CRPF Constable. He is permanent resident of Madanapalli Town, Annamayya District. He has got fixed abode. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are six cases similar in nature reported against the petitioner and he is a rowdy-sheeter. Of course, until the guilt is proved, the petitioner is presumed to be innocent. Mere pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner is not a sole ground for rejecting the 5 request for grant of regular or pre-arrest bail as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others1. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge him on bail with the following stringent conditions: (i) The petitioner-accused No. 2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kadiri; (ii) The petitioner-accused No. 2shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Monday and Thursday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm till cognizance is taken by learned trial Court; (iii) The petitioner-accused No. 2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. If the petitioner- accused No. 2 indulges in any allegation of commission of any offence during pendency of the instant case, the investigating officer is at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of his bail; 1 2020 (11) SCC 648 6 (iv) The petitioner-accused No. 2 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. 2 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. 2 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. 10. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. _________________________ Date: 25-09-2025, DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. JSK 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9816 OF 2025 Date: 25-09-2025 JSK