IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL J TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE M :PRESENT: V THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA R^ CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3968 OF 2025 Between: T. Vinoth, S/o Thirumal, aged 37 years, R/o D. No. 1/37, Pillayara Kovil Street, Sevalapurai, Viluppuram, Tamil Nadu - 604202. Petitioner/Accused No.4/Owner of the gravel AND The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. through the Station House Officer Sathyavedu Police Station, Sathyavedu, Tirupati District, (Chittoor District). Respondent/Complainant Petition under Sections 482 of BNSS (old 438 of Cr.P.C) the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i Petition, the High Court praying that in in support of the Criminal may be pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.4 Directing the SHO. Satyavedu to release the petitioner - A4 in the event of arrest in connection with crime no 81 of 2024 dt. 13-08-2024 of the Sathyavedu Police Station, Sathyavedu. Tirupati District (Chittoor District) registered under Section 105 r/w 3 (5) BNS. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and APPAVU MUNIRAJ upon hearing the arguments of Sri and of PUBLIC made the following; Advocate for the Petitioner PROSECUTOR for the Respondent and the Court 1 APHC010188072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SMB [3369] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3968/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED T Vi noth AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.APPAVU MUNIRAJ Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: The Criminal Petition, under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is filed on behalf of the Petitioner/A.4 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.81/2024 of Satyavedu Police Station, Tirupati. 1. A case has been registered against the petitioner herein and others for the offence punishable under Sections 105 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’). 2. The prosecution's case is that on 13.08.2024 at approximately 8:30 PM, an incident occurred in Sathyavedu Mandal, reported by the complainant at 11:45 PM the same day. Accordifig.to the complainant, A.1, the driver of 3. Tipper lorry No. TN20-DF-4034. DH-9555, stopped their vehicles measures. These vehicles on the instructions of A.3, the and A.2, the driver of Tipper lorry No. TN20- on the road without any signals were later seized by the Sathyavedu or safety revenue staff owner of the tippers, and A.4, the owner of the quarry (gravel), despite knowing the risk of son-in-law (deceased), while irding his motorcycle two children (aged 12 and 11), collided an accident. The complainant's (TN20 AS 0545) with his with one of the stationary tippers and sustained severe injuries. All the injured were rushed to Hospital, Sathyavedu, where the Government and the the deceased was declared dead children received treatment for their injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner (A4) contends not present at the crime r the lorries from a distance. The that the petitioner was scene and could not have ordered the drivers to other accused were already granted bail this Court. The petitioner, who is undergoing medical treatment i remain in jail or judicial custody. He has no intention of absconding, is willing to cooperate with the investigation, and will comply with any conditions for anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petitioner bail. stop by IS unable to requests the grant of anticipatory 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing or the Respondent/State, opposes the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the investigation is still pending. I have heard both sides. Learned submissions on par with the contentions the Report. 6. counsel on both sides reiterated their presented in the Petition as well as in 7. In Mahipal V. Rajesh\ the Hon'ble Apex Court held for the Court, while considering a bail application, to assess whether on the evidentiary record, there existed that it is necessary , based a prima facie or reasonable ground to (2020) 2 see 118 believe that the accused has committed the crime. It is settled law that when detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate granting bail, a documentation of the case's merits has not to be undertaken. That did not that whilst granting bail, some reasons for prima facie concluding why mean bail was being granted did not have to be indicated It is settled law that while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused properly comprehended before arrest is made. In the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, the normal of events, the accused is entitled to an order of anticipatory bail. The 8. bail must be course Court must adequately exercise its jurisdiction to protect the personal liberty of a citizen. It is also a well-accepted principle that bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. Arrest should be the last option, and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative based on the facts and circumstances of that case. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner (A4) contends that A1 and A2, the drivers of the lorries involved in the accident causing one fatality, and A3, the owner of the vehicles, were transporting gravel owned by the petitioner/A.4. accident allegedly occurred due to the vehicles being stationed in the middle of the road. The offence is registered under Section 105 r/w 3(5) of the BNS. Leaned counsel further contends that A1 and A2 were granted regular by this Court (Crl.P.No.8310 of 2024), and A3, the owner of the vehicles, granted anticipatory bail (Crl.P.No.7755 of 2024). While granting bail to A.3 this Court observed that, even assuming negligence in stationing the The bail was vehicles. the petitioner / A.3 (owner) may not be liable for the drivers' actions. Given the similarity of the petitioner's case to A3's, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail on the same grounds. At this stage, the allegations against the petitioner are subjected to the It is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused 10. trial’s outcome 4 would tamper with the prosecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. It is not the Prosecution's case that the petitioner failed to cooperate with the investigation, and he is not available for interrogation. There is no indication of a likelihood that the petitioner would abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court. The petitioner has expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation agency. The object of the bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The likelihood of levying accusations with the intention of harming or embarrassing the petitioner through potential arrest is not improbable. Given the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, this Court views that even if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there cannot be any apprehension for the Prosecution that he will tamper with the evidence. The material placed on record discloses that the petitioner has permanent abode. The facts do not warrant custodial interrogation of the petitioner in the nature of the accusations. Granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner would not impede the ongoing investigation. Therefore, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail subject to appropriate conditions, it would safeguard the interest of the prosecution and meet the ends of justice. 11. 12. Upon careful review of the available material, as there is no risk of interference with the ongoing investigation by the petitioner, this Court finds that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under certain conditions: i) Petitioner/A.4 shall be enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest with regard to the above said crime number, on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned investigating officer. 13. I ii) On such release, the petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on 1®* and 15**^ of between 10.00 AM and 01.00 PM for a period of three months, iii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required, and he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer, iv) The petitioner shall not indulge in similar acts of crime. It is explicitly clarified that the observations made in this Order are preliminary and pertain solely to the decision on the present application without indicating a stance on the case's merits. The Investigating Agency is affirmed to have the freedom to investigate without being influenced by observations in this Order. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. every month 14. the 15. ^^nagaiwma ASSISTANT SECTION OFfMeR GiStrar //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Station House Officer, Sathyavedu Police Station, Tirupati District (Chittoor District) 2. One CC to SRI. APPAVU MUNIRAJ Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP 4. One spare copy Sathyavedu, [OUT] KJ \ high court TMR,J DATED;30/04/2025 bail order CRLP.No.3968 of 2025 allowed k' ’n ■P 0 9 MM O I iX mi .1, iD