\.``\ts ` . lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI,tgiv±l r<_i FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER;berf - TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAQ.\ ;.i CRIMINAL PETl"ON NO: 10087 OF 2025 \# Betwee n : 1. Bathineni Viswanath Naidu, S/o Lakshminarayana, age 39 + z9`: yrs,Resident Of Kattakindapalli village, Bathalapalli of Mandal,Ananthapuramu District. 2. Gujjala Kalyan, S/o Gujjala Eswaraiah, age 30 yrs,Resident Of v: D.No.`2J-535, SuryachandraPuram VillageBathalapalli Mandal,rf Ananthapuramu District. `rff ..petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 t+#-+ AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public#rOSeCutOr High Court of Andhra Pradesh .. :5,esPOndenUDefacto Complainant petition under sections 48ti & 483 of BNSS of 2023 is filed Praylng that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds of \_/ criminal petition, the H`irgn Court may be Pleased `` (, petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 on regular bail in Crime Bathalapalli Police Station, Sathya Sat District', t`S,,_ \.__--.-,.- to enlarge the \,,-,` No.110/2025 of The petition COming On for hearing, upon PeruS-lng the Petit',on and the memorandum of grou,nds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri N.Ranhag€ Reddy, Advocate for the PetitIOnerS and PublIC prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the fOllOWing', APHCO10514902025 EELE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special OrI-ginaI JurisdictI-On) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10087 OF 2025 [3521] Between.I 1.BATHINENI VISWANATH NAIDU, S/O LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGE 39 YRS,RESIDENT OF KATTAKINDAPALLI VILLAGE, BATHALAPALLI MANDAL,ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 2.GUJJALA KALYAN, S/O GUJJALA ESWARAIAH, AGE 30 YRS,RESIDENT OF D.NO.2-535,I SURYACHANDRAPURAM VILLAGEBATHALAPALLI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ".PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its public prosecutor High Court ofAndhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the petitioner/accused(s): 1.N RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court,made the followI-ng: ORDER: The Criminal petition has been fl-led under sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity [the BNSS7), seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Mos.1 and 2 on bail in Crime No.110 of 2025 of Bathalapalli Police Stall-On, Sathya Sai District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1 ),118(1), 324(4) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for brevity {the BNSl). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that the defacto complainant worked as driver with Accused No.1. Later he borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-from Accused No.1 and executed a promissory note. Subsequently, it was repaid, but Accused No.1 did not return the promissory note. On 24.08:2025 at 7.00 p.m the defacto complainant and his friend were going to BathalapaIIi from their village in the car and when the car came near ZP HI'gh School, the Accused No.1 to 6 stopped the car and damaged the car with iron rods and sickles, Later Accused No.1 and 2 beat the defacto complainant with rods and dragged him outside and caused bleeding injuries. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, and that there is no prJ'ma faC,'e material Or cogent evidence connecting the Petitioners to the commission of the crime. It is further contended that the Petitioners are the sole earning member of his family and that their incarceration would result in grave hardship and I-rreparable prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioners undertake to comply with any cc:nn:ll:::[ntgh:;ethp[rsayHeornf:brlegr:notu:i bma:Iy deem f[t and Proper tO Impose Wh"e ings. It is also urged that the nature of the te custodial interrogation, and that the cooperation in all future proceet allegations does not necessit imposition of appropriate condi justice. ln view of the foregoing, i ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per confra, Ms. P. Akhila has vehemently opposed the pr exists a palpable and imminen frustrating the due process of submitted that the Petitioner discretionary relief and it is urg POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. ln view of the r-lval submis and upon a perusal of the pr meritl'ng for consideration is: ``-_\| ions would 'suffice to secure the ends of is 'urged to allow the petition. Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor yer for bail. ]t -ls also contended that there risk of the Petitioner absconding, thereby . In view of the gravity and allegations, it is are not entitled to the indulgence of o dismiss the present Criminal Petition. ions advanced by both the learned Counsel secutorial narrative, the pivotal issue now •d "Whether the petit-IOnerS are entitled for grant of bail?'' ANALYSIS: 7. This is the second bail application. Earlier, this Court in Criminal Petition No.9543 of 2025, dated 19.09.2025 dI-SmiSSed the bail application filed by the Accused No.1 and 2, while enlarging the peti{I-OnerS No.3 to 6 on bail. There are changes of circumstances from the date of dismissing the earlier bail application till fI'Iing of the present applI'CatiOn. Charge Sheet filed after thorough investigation on o6.09.2025. The Petitioners were arrested on 26.08.2025. They were in judicial custody for the past 31 days. The Petitioners No.1 and 2 are permanent residents of Kattakindapalli Village and Suryachandrapuram village, Bathalapalli Mandal, Anantapuramu DistrI'Ct. They have got fixed abode. CONCLUSION: 8. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the Petitioners, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the Petitioners, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), with two suretI'eS each for the like sum each to the satisfaction -of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram. r-..---=^1 ii. The Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 shall appear before the station House Off-lcer, Bathalapall-I Police Station, Sathya Sai D'lstrict, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court, 'l'li. The Pet'ltioners/Accu'sed No. 1 and 2 shall not leave the limits of the state of Andhra Pradesh without Prior Perm'lSSiOn from the station House Officer concerned. iv. The Petitioners/Accused No.1 ahd 2 shall not commit or indulge ion commission of any offence in future. v. The Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 shall cooperate with the |lnvestigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 shall not, d|lrectly 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 disclos'lng such facts to the court or to any police officer. vii. The Petit'loners/Accused No.1 and 2 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. lf they claim that they do not have passports, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. '``\? i= •t`` -.` Gy 9. Accordingly, the crlmlnal PetJtJOn Its a"owed //TRUE COPY// To, For 1. The Judlclal FIrS[ class Magl'strate, Dharamavararfer 2. The superI-ntendent, DI-Strict Jill, Ananthapuram.tchf* 3' The statIOn House officer, Bha'apalll P6ii'ce statlon, sathya saI D I. S trl. ct. tr~?,r 4- 5. 6. MM one cc to sH N Ranga R~eddy, Advocate [opucJ ```d?`pr-`- Two cos to publIC Prosec`uutof, Hlgh court ofAP [OUTJ One spare copy ttspr_~, z|z *J \ - A o*` HIGH COURT Dr.YLRJ DATED :26/09/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.10087 of 2025 ALLOWED