APHC010588872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11432/2025 Between: 1.THALARI SAI PRAKASH ALIAS PRAKASH, S/O. MUTHYALAIAH,AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,R/O. THIPPAGUNTAPALEM VILLAGE,CHILLAKUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by SHO, Kandaleru Police Station, SPSR Nellore District,Through the Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.CHAITANYA PALISETTY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.5 on bail in Crime No.16 of 2025 of Kandaleru Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered against the 2 Petitioner/Accused No.5 herein for the offences punishable under Section 103(2), 140(1), 61(2), 238 & 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has not committed any offence. He was falsely implicated in this case. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. If he is enlarged on bail he would abide by any condition. He has got fixed abode. The wife of the Petitioner is carrying 8½ months pregnancy. Accused No.3 was already enlarged on bail. Accused No.6 also was enlarged on bail. There is no direct evidence available, and it is urged to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. 4. This is the second bail application. This Court on 28.10.2025 dismissed the first bail application not on merits but as withdrawn. After thorough investigation chargesheet has been filed. Accusation against the Petitioner is well founded. The Petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 24.05.2025. There are CCTV footages covering the notorious design of the Petitioner and other accused in taking away the life of the deceased. On 15.05.2025 nighttime a recce was conducted by Accused Nos.2 to 5. Further on 16.05.2025 the movements of the Accused were recorded at relevant spots of scene of offence. 5. As per the record, the present Petitioner also participated in the heinous offence. There are direct eyewitnesses to the occurrence. Before the killing of 3 the deceased, he was forcibly abducted by the Accused. Petitioner/Accused No.5 got down from the car, dragged the deceased out of the car towards roadside and handover the Matchu Katthi (Knife) to Accused No.4 who slit the throat of the deceased/Shaik Shafi. Accused No.4 slit the throat of Shaik Shafi causing instantaneous death, in doing so the cloths of the Petitioner and Accused No.4 got blood stains. 6. This Court vide order dated 16.10.2025 in Crl.P.No.10475 of 2025 enlarged Accused No.3 on bail on the ground that there were omnibus allegations levelled against the Accused No.3. This Court vide order dated 31.10.2025 in Crl.P.No.10990 of 2025 enlarged Accused No.6 on bail on the ground that he acted as driver of the vehicle in which the deceased was abducted. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee1, at paragraph No.9 held as under: “…It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” 8. The allegations levelled against the Petitioner and Accused No.4 are severe in nature, diabolical and barbaric. There are specific overt acts 1 (2010) 14 SCC 496 4 attributed against the Petitioner. The accusation is well founded against the Petitioner. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.5, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.5. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 18.11.2025 VTS