APHC010600492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11582/2025 Between: 1.SUGOOR ALIAS SUGURI MAHESH, S/O VENKATAIAH, AGED 36 YEARSOCC BUSINESS, R/O. 7-31, NADIMPALLYVILLLAGEATCHAMPETA MANDAL, NAGARKURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court, at Amaravathi, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.SIVA NAGARJUNA SIDHADAPU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.62 of 2025 in Gurazala Town Police Station, Palnadu District, 2 registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 308(2), read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has not committed any offence, he was falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner is the sole bread winner of his family. Petitioner is blessed with four children and he would abide by any condition to be imposed by this Court if he is enlarged on bail and urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 4. Earlier this Court disposed of Crl.P.No.9640 of 2025 vide order dated 08.10.2025 filed by the Petitioner as he had not approached the learned Sessions Judge at the first instance and he directly approached this Court, by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal C v. State of Kerala1 and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar2. 5. Accordingly, the Petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge vide Crl.M.P.No.380 of 2025 in Cr.No.62 of 2025. However, the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gurazala vide order dated 24.10.2025 dismissed the bail application. 6. This Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 in Crl.P.No.10392 of 2025 granted regular bail to Accused No.2 as he was in the judicial custody for the past sixty days and in respect of him material portion of the investigation was completed. However, in the allegations levelled against the Petitioner, there 1 SLP (Crl.) Nos.6588 of 2025 2 Crl. Appeal @ SPL (Crl) No.17805 of 2024 3 are direct and specific overt acts against the Petitioner. The de-facto complainant suffered grievous injuries. 7. In the process of tracing out the de-facto complainant, the wife of the Petitioner and other, the accused have gone to the extent of killing the father of the de-facto complainant. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and severity of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner as it would amount giving a premium or license to those persons against whom specific overt acts are attributed, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab 3and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)4. 9. 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 ‘the BNSS’. The allegations prima facie discloses a serious offence warranting thorough investigation, and the Petitioners, 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. 10. Hence, this criminal petition is dismissed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. 3 (1980) 2 SCC 565 4 (2020) 5 SCC 1 4 Date:17.11.2025 VTS