APHC010695872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13236/2025 Between: Gnaneswar Alias Y Gnaneshkumar and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. D PURNA CHANDRA REDDY 2. 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 482of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.12 and 3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.422 of 2025 in Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 109(1) and 118(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for brevity of ‘the BNS’). 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioners are innocent. They have not committed any offence. Their names were not mentioned in the FIR. Based on the confession of one of the accused they were falsely implicated in this case. They have got fixed abode. They are law- abiding citizens. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners. They would abide by any condition which this Court deems fit to enlarge them on bail, and it is urged to allow the petition. 3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the accusation is well-founded against the petitioners and it is urged to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 5. As seen from the record, no doubt the names of the petitioners were not found in the FIR. However, the role of the petitioners came to light when Accused No.3 was arrested and his statement was recorded. L.W.2 suffered grievous injuries at the hands of the accused. All the accused, including the petitioners, formed an unlawful assembly and attacked L.W.2. Although the allegations against the petitioners, even in the confession statement of Accused No.3, are omnibus in nature, in view of the injuries and the severity of those suffered by L.W.2, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, as it would amount to giving a shield, protection, or licence to the petitioners, who allegedly caused grievous injury to the victim, as held by the 3 Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab 1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)2. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, granting of pre‑arrest bail is neither a license to those, against whom grave allegations are leveled, nor a shield or protection to those persons who have indulged in the commission of the offence in a barbaric way. Pre‑arrest bail is a relief which would be granted to protect innocent persons from falsified accusations. 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 petitioners, liberty is granted to the petitioners to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate 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. The learned Jurisdictional Court concerned shall make endeavor to dispose of the said application in accordance with law, on its own merits by giving sufficient opportunity to both sides within a period of one (01) week. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:31.12.2025 KMS 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 2(2020) 5 SCC 1 4 38 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13236 of 2025 Date: 31.12.2025 KMS