APHC010625492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12068/2025 Between: GANGULURI RAVI TEJA, S/O. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O. PEDAPATA, SIDDHANTHAM VILLAGE, PENUGONDA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, through SHO Eluru III Town PS, Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.1: D TARAKA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 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 enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.228 of 2025 of Eluru 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.12068 of 2025 Dated 28.11.2025 III Town Police Station, Eluru District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1) and 312 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has got fixed abode. He is the sole breadwinner of his family. He has not committed any offence. The material portion of the investigation has been completed. It is further submitted that the victim was discharged from the hospital on the next day of the alleged offence. A Test Identification Parade was conducted by the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate, and it is therefore urged that the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that, so far 14 witnesses have been examined. There is one adverse antecedent reported against the petitioner in Crime No. 182 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC’). It is submitted that the accusation against the petitioner is well founded, and it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. As seen from the record, no doubt, the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, in Crl.M.P. Nos. 654 and 665 of 2025 in Cr.No. 228 of 2025 of Eluru III Town Police Station, dismissed the bail 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.12068 of 2025 Dated 28.11.2025 petitions vide a common order against Accused Nos.1 to 4. The second bail petition of Accused No.1 was also dismissed vide Crl.M.P. No. 732 of 2025 in Cr.No. 228 of 2025 of Eluru III Town Police Station. The petitioner herein was arrested on 19.09.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 70 days. The Test Identification Parade was also conducted by the Jurisdictional Magistrate, in which the victim identified the accused No.1 and other accused. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are friends. Accused No.2 is the wife of Accused No.3. Accused No.2 informed Accused No.1 he has got some debts, in order to clear the debts, it is alleged that the petitioners conspired to indulge and involve in activities to gain money. L.W.1 is the son of the victim, who is aged about 56 years, mentioned in his complaint lodged with the police that some unknown offenders, with an intention to take away the gold ornaments owned by his mother, stabbed his mother on her back, neck, right ear, right jaw, right shoulder, and other parts of the body indiscriminately and tried to kill her. The victim suffered grievous injuries at the hands of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner/accused No.1, on an earlier occasion, was indulged in a crime registered vide Cr.No.182 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of ‘the IPC’. Be that as it may, the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is presumed to be innocent until the guilt is proved.The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, at paraNo.7, observed that mere pendency of criminal antecedents itself is not a ground to deny the 1(2020) 11 SCC 648 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.12068 of 2025 Dated 28.11.2025 request for grant of bail. However, taking into the veracity of the attacks made by the Accused No.1, who was well identified by the victim in the test identification parade, and the diabolic nature of the activities committed by the Accused No.1, this Court is not inclined to enlarge him on bail at this point of time. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity and nature of the allegations leveled against the Petitioner/Accused No.1, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.1. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:28.11.2025 PRA 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.12068 of 2025 Dated 28.11.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12068 of 2025 Date: 28.11.2025 PRA