Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 48539 (AP)

Pulavarthi Koteswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

CRLP/12138/2025 · 2025-11-30

Y Lakshmana Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010625282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12138/2025 Between: Pulavarthi Koteswara Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VENKATA SUBBAIAH POGULA 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 8the BNSS9) by the Petitioner/Accused No.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.141 of 2025 of Chebrolu Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 109(1) and 351(3) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 8the BNS9). 2 2. Perused the record. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Mr. P.Venkata Subbaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused No.2, submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. He was falsely implicated in this case. He is the sole breadwinner of his family. He has got fixed abode. He is ready to abide by any condition that this Hon9ble Court may deem fit in the event that pre-arrest bail is granted. There are no adverse criminal antecedents reported against the petitioner. Hence, it is prayed that bail may be granted to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposes the grant of pre-arrest bail and submits that there are two eye witnesses, who spoke about the complicity of the petitioner involving in this case. So far, only six witnesses are examined, the investigation is at a nascent stage and the accusation is well found against the petitioner. Hence, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the criminal petition. 5. On perusal of the record, there are specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner. It is alleged that when the petitioner and the other accused caught hold of the defacto complainant, Accused No. 1 beat him with an iron rod, as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries. There are two direct eyewitnesses i.e., L.Ws. 4 and 5, who have supported the version of the 3 defacto complainant. However, there is a delay of nearly 18 hours in lodging the FIR. The alleged offence took place on 18.06.2025 at about 6:30 p.m., and the defacto complainant approached the police and gave his statement on 19.06.2025 at 12:30 p.m. Though there are no adverse criminal antecedents against the petitioner, the specific overt acts attributed to him cannot be ignored. 6. In view of these circumstances, the petitioner/accused No.2 is not entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail, as it would amount to providing a shield or protection to a person against whom specific overt acts attributed. Grant of pre-arrest bail is not a license for the commission of cognizable and non- bailable offences, as per the decisions of the Hon9ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)2. Hence, there are no merits in the petition. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, as per the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2, liberty is granted to the petitioner/accused No.2 to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned within one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and move an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned. On such filing, the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned is directed to dispose of the said application in accordance with law, 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 2(2020) 5 SCC 1 4 on its own merits by giving due and sufficient opportunity to both the learned counsels, and pass appropriate orders within a period of one week. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 01.12.2025 S D P 5 190 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12138 OF 2025 01.12.2025 S D P