Erukula Narayanaswamy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
CRLP/11253/2025 · 2025-11-13
Y Lakshmana Rao
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 40122 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 40122 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010578472025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11253/2025 Between:
1. ERUKULA NARAYANASWAMY, S/O. MUTHYALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARSR/O.
D.NO. 9-387-B, AJAYAGHOSH COLONYRUDRAMPET, GEORGEPET, ANANTAPURAMU RURAL MANDAL ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Station House OfficerKambadur Police Station,Ananthapur DistrictRep.by public prosecutorHigh Court, Amaravathi
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. ALAPATI LALITH NIKHIL Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
The Court made the following ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.71 of 2025 of Kambadur Police Station, Anantapuramu District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1), and 79 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Mr. A.Lalith NiKhil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner/Accused No.2 was falsely implicated in this case, he had not committed any offence and he is sole breadwinner of the family. He is ready to abide by any condition to be imposed by this Court while enlarging him on bail. He is permanent resident of Rudrampet, he has got fixed abode. Investigation has been completed and it is urged to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 4. Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner, investigation has not yet been completed and it is urged to dismiss the petition. 3
5. On perusal of record, LWs.1, 2 and 3 suffered injuries which are simple in nature. LW1 suffered four injuries, LW2 suffered 4 injuries, LW3 suffered one injury in the hands of the petitioner and other accused. There are specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner. The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, while dismissing the pre-arrest bail of the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.867 of 2025, it was mentioned that a suspect sheet bearing No.387 of Kambadur Police Station was opened against the petitioner. Grant of anticipatory bail is neither a license nor a shield to those persons against whom specific overt acts are attributed.
There are no merits in the Criminal Petition. 6. It is well settled in law, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, that the grant of anticipatory bail does not amount to a charter for commission of serious offences, nor does it serve as a cloak of immunity for individuals against whom specific and prima facie cognizable allegations have been levelled. The relief under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’ is intended to safeguard personal liberty, but not to thwart the legitimate course of investigation or to protect those who are prima facie complicit in grave offences involving overt acts. 7. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, coupled with the nature and gravity of the specific allegations attributed to the Petitioner, this Court finds no justifiable ground to exercise discretion under Section 482 of
1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1
4
‘the BNSS’. The allegations prima facie discloses a serious offence warranting thorough investigation, and the Petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not merit the relief of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected. 8. Hence, this criminal petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 14.11.2025 NSM
5
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11253 OF 2025 14.11.2025
NSM