1 APHC010534982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10397/2025 Between: Nidigunta Aruna ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting bail in connection with Crime No.228 of 2025 of Nawabpet Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 380(5), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 25(1)(A) Arms Act, 1959 on the allegation of extortion. 2 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Mr.Amancharla Satish Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner never possessed any arms. Therefore the provisions of Arms Act could not be applicable to her. The petitioner is private employee. She has got fixed abode. She is permanent resident of Nellore District. If she is enlarged on bail, she would not escape from the clutches of the law. Major portion of the investigation is completed. Therefore, the petitioner may not interfere with the investigation process. The petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is sole bread winner of her family. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Accused Nos.6 to 8, who are female, were already granted bail by the learned Trial Court. Hence, it is urged to enlarge the Petitioners on bail. 4. Per contra, Mr. M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground that investigation is at nascent stage; the petitioner is habitual offender. There are number of criminal cases pending against the petitioner. She has become an unruly element in the Society. If she is enlarged on bail at this juncture she would definitely hinder further investigation and threaten the witnesses. So far of the investigation conducted reveals that the role of the petitioner has been clearly established and urged to dismiss the criminal petition. 3 5. On perusal of the record, a civil dispute, in between two brothers i.e., de-facto complainant by name S.V.Sasi Kumar and Venkata Ravi, was brought before one local councillor. Later, the petitioner and Accused Nos.2 to 5 entered into the civil dispute of the de-facto complainant and his brother. The accused compelled the de-facto complainant to sign on bond papers and threatened him. The petitioner/ accused No.1 on point of Gun threatened the de-facto complainant. After some days the petitioner/Accused No.1 with the accused Nos.2 to 5 came to the house of de-facto complainant threatened him with dire consequences and demanded Rs.2 lakhs. Later they extorted Rs.20,000/- from the de-facto complainant. 6. So far only 9 witnesses are examined. The petitioner was arrested on PT warrant on 15.09.2025. She has been in judicial custody for the past 45 days. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the pistol which was used by the petitioner/Accused No.1 is yet to be recovered. Mere pendency of adverse similar antecedents is not the basis for refusal to grant bail. The nature and gravity of allegation are required to be looked into in the backdrop of the previous history of the petitioner. The investigation is still at nascent stage. Some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. The weapon used for commission of the alleged offence is yet to be recovered from the possession of the accused. 4 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarged the present Petitioner on bail at this stage. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 31.10.2025 S D P 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10397 OF 2025 31.10.2025 S D P