APHC010664702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12850/2025 Between: 1.BEDAVADI NAGARAJU ALIAS MAREPPA NAGARAJU, S/O MAREPPA,R/O GARIGAVATHI, KOTRESWARI CAMP,KOPPAL DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE 2.DODDAGALIJAR KISHORE KUMAR, S/O RAVAPPA,R/O GANGAVATHI, KOTRESWARI CAMP KOPPAL DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,Chirala Rural Police Station,High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.ARUN SHOWRI G 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 2 enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 4 on bail in Crime.No.166 of 2025 of Chirala Rural Police Station, Bapatla District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 4 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 308(7) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20231. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri G.Arun Showri, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocent, they have not committed any offence, they were falsely implicated in this case. They are the sole breadwinners of their families; they have got fixed abode. If some conditions are imposed, which this Court deem it fit, the Petitioners would abide by those conditions while enlarging them on bail and it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 4. Per contra, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail, submitting that the Petitioners are involved in grave offences of cheating and extortion, wherein the complainant was lured under false pretences of selling gold, assaulted, threatened with a knife, and deprived of Rs.14,00,000/‑ and mobile phones. It is argued that the deliberate modus operandi adopted by the Petitioners, along with other accused, shows a premeditated design to defraud. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further contends that the investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.749 of 2025, crystallizing the allegations. In view of the seriousness of the offences, 1 the BNS 3 the risk of tampering with witnesses or absconding, the Public Prosecutor requests for dismissal of the present bail application. 6. Having given thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a scrupulous evaluation of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail. The allegations disclose a prima facie case of grave and heinous offences involving criminal conspiracy, cheating, extortion, and intimidation with deadly weapon, wherein the de- facto complainant and his brother were allegedly enticed under false pretences, subjected to assault, threatened with dire consequences, and dispossessed of a substantial sum of Rs.14,00,000/- together with mobile phones. The gravity of the accusations, coupled with the modus operandi adopted by the Petitioners in concert with other accused persons, manifestly indicates a premeditated design to defraud and extort. It is further pertinent to note that the investigation has culminated in the filing of charge sheet in C.C.No.749 of 2025, thereby crystallizing the allegations into prosecutable material, and that the Petitioners stand remanded to judicial custody. The plea of innocence and false implication, being matters of defence, cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The contention that prolonged detention infringes fundamental rights is devoid of merit in view of the seriousness of the offences and the potential threat posed to public peace and security. Moreover, the repeated filing of bail applications before diverse forums, all of which have been dismissed on merits, evinces an attempt to secure liberty without any change in circumstances. In the absence of cogent and convincing grounds, 4 this Court finds no justification to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the Petitioners. A memo has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that father of the petitioner No.1 died on 22.11.2025. No application filed by the petitioner No.1 seeking for temporary release of the petitioner immediately after the demise of his father. At this juncture, this request of the petitioner cannot be considered. 7. For the above reasons and considering the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the Petitioners, and the manner of commission, there are no merits in this case at present. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 24.12.2025 VTS