! [3521 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA^4’ WEDNESDAY JHE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBEfer' 'Si* r i Jr 4 Vi ~ SfV, ’c> TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE r'-i. ,v i •% s* I'rt' 4 ■j. rPRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9711 OF 2025 Between: Y. Ravindra @ Ravi, S/o. Gangulappa, Aged 45 years, R/o. D.No. 1-254-A, Kumarapuram, H/o/ Ponnutipalem, Nimmanapalli Mandal Annamayya District. j Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Cour: of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. Respondent Petition under Section 482 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to direct the Station House Officer, Madanapalli I Town Police Station to release the petitioner/accused No. 2 bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Cr. No. 91/2025 of Madanapalli I Town Police Station, Annamayya District. > pn The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Advocate for the Petitioner, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) for the Respondent and the Court made the following. APHC010493032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9711/2025 Between: Y Ravindra Alias Ravi ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused No.2, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.91 of 2025 of Madanapalli l-Town Police Station, Annamayya District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 115(1), 2 V 118(1), 109(1), 329(4) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘the BNS’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.08.2025 the defacto complainant came to know that the injured Sudhakar has got two wives and the first wife name is Gulabjan and she is blessed with two children and subsequently Sudhakar got married one Shaheen and used to reside along with her and about one month back disputes arose between Sudkhakar and his second wife. While so on 04.08.2025 at about 2.00 p.m., Sudhakar left Municipal Office and went to the house for taking lunch and in an enroute tlje petitioner/accused came on a scooter opposite to him and questioned hi about contact shaheeba over phone for that some altercation took' place between sudhakar and the petitioner/accused and both left that place. On the same day at 2.30 p.m., the petitioner along with others went to the house of Sudhakar trespassed into his house and beat Sudhakar with hands and legs and caused injuries and later he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Madanapalle for better treatment. T1 CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: Mr.D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has net committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his 3. ✓ dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioners and custodial interrogation period was over and such custody is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.2. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 4. or 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 6. It is further urged that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the integrity of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. that the 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced t)y the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is; 8. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?' ANALYSIS: 9. The allegation against the petitioner/accused No.2 is that he along with some other accused beat the defacto complainant with their hands and legs. In fact as per the case of the prosecution, accused No.1 alone is caused grievous injuries to the defacto complainant. There are omnibus allegations leveled against the petitioner/accused No.2. The petitioner/Accu sed No.2 is resident of Nimmanapalli Mandal, Annamayya District. He got fixed abode. Sc far five witnesses are examined and all are material witnesses. Insofar as the alleged role of the petitioner is concerned, the investigation is completed. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are no similar adverse antecedents against the petitioner/Accused No.2. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to petitioner/Accused No.2. CONCLUSION: 10. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed, with the following stringen conditions; 5 ✓ Jn the event of arrest of the Petitioner/Accused No.2, he shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting ■ police officials: I. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. ,The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claim that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. IV. V. y Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT STRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER F To, 1. The Station House Officer, Madanapalli I Town Police Station, Annamayya District. 2. One CC to SRI. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor (AP) High Court of A.P., Amaravati [OUT]. 4. One spare copy HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED:24/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.9711 of 2025 ALLOWED O <_s ? 6 StP ® rfi iI tS> ■k