APHC010488032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9602/2025 Between: Meda Prasad ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. 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 on bail in Crime No.349 of 2025 on the file of Arilova Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered against the petitioner/Accused herein for the offence punishable under Section 109(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the case of the prosecution are that on 22.08.2025 at 15.30 hours at JNNURM Colony, Srikanth Nagar, Arilova, Visakhapatnam the accused went to 6th block and threatened the complainant’s wife and sister-in-law, at that time the complainant at outside of his residential block, then the accused sprinkled he chilli powder in his eyes and stabbed him with a knife on his back with intent to kill him, fled away from the spot. Immediately the father-in-law of the complainant and his wife shifted him to VIMS Hospital for treatement. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 3. Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, 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. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation thus far and 3 assure continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do 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.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are 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. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioner do not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 4 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. The petitioner is the sole accused. The allegation against him is that he fisted the defacto complainant ten (10) times and threatened him with a knife. The wound certificate has been received, which mentions that the defacto complainant sustained simple injuries. The petitioner was arrested on 22.08.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 45 days. So far, seven witnesses have been examined. The substantial portion of the investigation has been completed. The wound certificate has also been received. The petitioner is a permanent resident of JNNURM Colony, Srikanth Nagar, Arilova, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner has got fixed abode. The period of custodial interrogation is completed, and the possibility of the petitioner absconding from the clutches of law may not arise. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner, his alleged role played in this case, 5 and the period of detention undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. ii. The petitioner/Accused shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. iii. The petitioner/Accused shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The petitioner/Accused shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The petitioner/Accused shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. 6 vii. The petitioner/Accused shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claim that he do not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 07.10.2025 S D P 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9602 of 2025 Date:07.10.2025 S D P