APHC010522072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10197/2025 Between: Sri Bairaboyina Ashok ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VENKAT CHALASANI 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 1 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.6 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.6 of 2025 of Dornala Police Station, Prakasam District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 189(3), 191(3), 103(1) read with 1 The BNSS 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.10197 of 2025 Dated 13.10.2025 190 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 2 on the allegation that the Petitioner/Accused No.6 engage in armed rioting, with the additional offense of murder. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the name of the Petitioner/Accused No.6 was not even mentioned in the FIR. The Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. However, on perusal of the record, it is seen that L.Ws.7 to 12 have categorically stated under Section 161 of ‘the Cr.P.C..’/Section 180 of ‘the BNSS.,’ that Accused Nos.5 and 6 caught hold of the hands of the deceased with an intention to prevent him from moving further, while the other accused killed the deceased. Accused Nos.1, 2, and 4 have already been enlarged on regular bail. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 is the son of Accused No.2. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner was implicated in this case after he had filed a writ petition questioning the harassment by the police. Vide order dated 17.07.2025 in W.P. No.17809 of 2025, the writ petition was disposed of based on the written instructions furnished by the respondents, which are extracted below: 2. It is submitted that, B.Vijayalakshmi lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Domala PS, Prakasam District on 05.07.2025. Basing on the contents of the complaint a case 2 The BNS 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.10197 of 2025 Dated 13.10.2025 was registered as Cr.No.81/2025, U/s. 189(3), 191(3), 103(1) r/w 190 BNS of Dornala PS. During the course of investigation the 10 examined the LW-1 to 12 and recorded their detailed statements U/s 180(3) BNSS. Basing on the statements of the LW-7 to 12 the IO added the petitioner as accused (A-6) and filed the memo before the Hon'ble Court. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner is accused in the above crime. So that the Respondent police called the petitioner for investigation. It is further submitted the petitioner intentionally without cooperating the investigation agency filed the present writ petition with a false and baseless allegation against the respondent police. The petitioner's father also accused (A-2) in this crime. Further the Respondent police did not arrest the petitioner's father. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case as he had filed a writ petition against the police. It is stated in paragraph No.3 of the written instructions that the Petitioner intentionally did not cooperate with the investigating agency. After completion of the investigation, a preliminary charge sheet was filed within the stipulated period, wherein it is mentioned that the accusations against the Petitioner are well founded. 6. Though the learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner’s name is not found in the FIR, it is to be noted that the FIR is not the be-all and end-all of a criminal case. It is not an encyclopedia containing all the details of the prosecution case; rather, it is a document intended to set the criminal law in motion. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.10197 of 2025 Dated 13.10.2025 7. In view of the specific overt acts attributed to the Petitioner and the fact that the accusations against him are well founded as per the preliminary charge sheet, the grant of pre-arrest bail which is a discretionary remedy does not arise. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations leveled against the Petitioner/Accused No.6, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/ Accused No.6. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 13.10.2025. KMS 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.10197 of 2025 Dated 13.10.2025 52 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10197 OF 2025 13.10.2025 KMS