APHC010493872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9753/2025 Between: Lingala Siva Mahesh, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: M.Shanmukha Teja Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.9 on bail in Cr.No.166 of 2025 of Tadipathri Town Police Staion, Ananthapuram District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.9 herein for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9753 of 2025 Dated 26.09.2025 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.07.2025 at about 10: p.m., in front of the house of one Jagadeshwar Reddy, Kalvagadda Street, Tadipatri Town, Accused No.1 and some others came on two motorcycle, attacked and hacked one Hareesh @ Harsha and caused multiple lacerated injuries over the head and all over his body. The injured was immediately shifted to Government Area Hospital, Tadipatri, and from there to Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu, where the duty doctor examined the injured and declared as brought dead. CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri M. Shanmukha Teja, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel further submits that the entire allegations are against Accused No.10 only. The Petitioner/Accused No.9 has not indulged in any kind of activity. He has been in the judicial custody for the past 58 days. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9753 of 2025 Dated 26.09.2025 there is no likelihood of absconding or evading the process of law. The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation so far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that not warrant further custodial detention, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses yet to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that only ten witnesses are examined so far. There are CDRs in between accused No.1 and Accused No.10 at the relevant point of time. There are three eyewitnesses who spoke about the occurrence of the alleged offence and urged to dismiss the petition as there are video footages about the involvement of the petitioner and other accused. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9753 of 2025 Dated 26.09.2025 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. As seen from the record, this Court in Crl.P.No.9501 of 2025, dated 22.09.2025, dismissed the bail application of Accused No.8, and in Crl.P.No.9502 of 2025, dated 22.05.2025, dismissed the bail application of Accused No.10. There are specific overt acts against the Petitioner/Accused No.9. So far, ten witnesses are examined. Investigation is at nascent stage. Some more witnesses are to be examined. L.Ws.5 to 7 are direct eye- witnesses who supported the statement of the de-facto complainant. The Petitioner/Accused No.9 was arrested on 30.07.2025. He has been in the judicial custody for the past 58 days. Some more incriminating material is to be collected in the course of investigation. Enlarging the petitioner on bail at this juncture would hamper the process of investigation. Further, it would also create a sharp grief stricken situation to the victims, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail at this juncture where investigation is at progressive stage. 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9753 of 2025 Dated 26.09.2025 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of allegations leveled against the Petitioner/Accused No.9, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.9 on bail. There are no merits in the petition at present and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 26.09.2025 KMS 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9753 of 2025 Dated 26.09.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9753 of 2025 Date:26.09.2025 KMS