* `*- iii_o IN THE HIGH COURT OF A'NDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl|+rJ~ TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO v/ I ul CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.9906, 9908 a 9910 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9906 OF 2025 L/ `c `ll`}',ng -TT7# Between : \`.;. Nalladi Arjuna Rao, S/o. Veeranjaneyulu, Aged 45 years, Permanent resident of veladhikothapalem Village, Crfa-indarlapifu~ Mandal, NTR District. Currently E=_ residing at villa No. 2, Srihari VanaLm, NearTapasya School, Chandapuram Village, Nandigama, NTR District \f~ u-Jd ...petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by the Station House Officer, \_-I, Chandarlapadu Police Station, Rep through Concerned Courts Public Prosecutor. v7 ...Respondent • +.-- +¥ petition under sectionsl480 & 483 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the merio+andum of grounds filed in support of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant bail to the D petitioner/accused no.1 in connection with Crime No. 114/2025, on the file of •t{of the chandarlapadu Police Station, for the offences punishable D/s. 108;, 351 (2)i/w. 190 of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023. l counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Posani Venkateswa+Lrfu~, Senior Counsel representing Sri Kilaru Nithin Krishna \,>~ Counsel for the ResporICiemt : Ms.Akhila Naidu,I.,~~ Assistant Public Prosecutor CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9908 OF 2025 Between : 1. Gude Srin1'#sarao, s/o. Tirupatirao, Aged 37 years, R/o. veladhikothapal6f+ village, chandarlapaffurfMandal, NTR District. L+ 2. Gude Nagdis+wiararao, S/o. SambasiSa+ao, Aged 40 years, R/o. - Veladhikothapalem village,I.C.handarlapadu Mandal, NTR District 3. Gude Tiruta+piirao, S/o.`'V`enkateswarlu, Aged 68 years, R/o. veladhikothap¥em vl'l'age, chandarlapadu Mandal, NTR DistrictL# 4. Gude Sambtrslvarao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged 66 years, R/o. veladhikothap#m Village, Chandarlapadu MandaI, NTR District. of ...PetI-tl-OnerS/Accused No.5 to 8 _AND `````The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by the Station House Officer, t5±ed- Chandarlapadu Police Station, Rep through Concerned Courts Public Prosecutor. u.Respondent halir `xiN Petition under Sections 46ro & 483 of BNSS, prayI'ng that in the cI'rCumStanCeS Stated in the meinorandum of grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant bail to the \*--'- * petitioners/accused no. 5 to 8 in connection with crime No. 114/Zz5T25, on the file of the chandarlapadu ptorfee station, for the offences punishable u/s.108, 351 (2)i';w.190 of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhl'tha, 2023. #~J Counsel forthe petitione'r : sriAkhI-I Krjshnan, urf Counsel forthe Respondent : Ms.Akhila Naidu, rfT Assistant Public Prosecutor . I,i cR[MINAL PETITION NO: 9910 OF 2025 Between: 1. Chinthoti Kotets#ara Rao, S/o. Seethaiah, Aged 68 years, R/o. veladhikothapalem Village, Chandarlapadu Mandal, NTR District \~ 2. Chinthot`i Rajes#ra Rao, S/o. K.oteswara Rao, Aged 47 years, R/o. veladhikotharfem village,1 chandarlapadu Mandal, NTR District. I-rf 3. Chinthoti Prudffvl Rao, S/o. Nanayya, Aged 52 years, R/o. veladhikothapalgrrvTllage, chandarlapadu Mandal, NTR District. trrf ...petitioners/Accused No.2 to 4 \ed~+ AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High court of AP. at Amaravathi. Rep by the Station House Officer, Chandarla\graffu Police Station, at amaravathil tr ur II|Respondent petition under sections 480`- & 483 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal petition, the High Court lmay be pleased to grant bail tO the t3,.rfe- - . viJ^ petitioners/accused no. 2 to 4 in Connection with Crime No. 114/2025, on the file of the chandarlapadrf~ol'lce station, for the offences punishable u/s.108; 351 (2) I/w. 190 of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023, counsel for the Petitioner : I,: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, L, Senior Counsel representing sri Ki]aru Nithin Krishna `~ \ .\.\ counsel for the Respond6nt : Ms.Akhila Naidu, L~ Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: APHCO10498162025 =TELE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Orl-ginaI Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Mos: 9906 9908 & 9910 of 2025 [3521] a,r[.P.No.9906of 2025 Between : l1. NALLADI ARJUNA RAO, S/O. VEERANJANEYULU, AGED 45 YEARS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VELADHIKOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, CHANDARLAPADU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. CURRENTLY RESIDING AT VILLA NO. 2, SRIHARI VANAM, NEARTAPASYA SCHOOL, CHANDAPURAM VILLAGE, NANDIGAMA, NTR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by the station House officer, chandarlapadu police station, Rep through concerned courts Public Prosecutor. . ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the petitioner/accusecI: 1.KILARU NITHIN KRISHNA Counsel, for the Respondent/compiainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CrI.P.No.9908 of 2025 Between : 1.GUDE SR!NIVASARAO, S/a. TIRUPA"RAO, AGED 37-YEARS, R/a. •l VELADHIKOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, CHANDARLAPADU MAND,!\L, NTR DISTRICT. 2.GUDE NAGESWARARAO, S/O. SAMBASIVARAO, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O. VELADHIKOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, CHANDARLAPADU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT 3.GUDE TIRUAPTIRAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O. VELADHIKOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, CHANDARLAPADU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. 4.GUDE SAMBASIVARAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 66 YEARS, R/O. VELADHIKOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, CHANDARLAPAD,'J MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by the station Hou`se officer, chandarlapadu police station, Rep through concerned courts Public prosecutor. Counsel for the petitioner/accused(s): 1.AKHIL KRISHNAN ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT CouIISel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 0 of2025 Between : 1.CHINTHOTI KOTESWARA RAO, S/O. SEETHAIAH, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O. VELADHIKOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, CHANDARLAPADU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT 2.CHINTHOTI RAJESWARA RAO, S/O. KOTESWARA RAO, AGED 47 yEARS, R/O. VELADHIKOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, CHANDARLAPADU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. 3.CHINTHOTi PRUDHVI RAO, S/O. NANAYYA, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O, VELADHIKOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, CHANDARLAPADU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its public prosecutor, High court of AP. at Amaravathi. Rep by the station House Officer, Chandarlapadu police Station, at amaravathi. mRESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the petitioner/accused(s).I 1. KILARU NITHIN KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: . COMMON ORDER: These three criminal petitions are heard conjoI'ntly and disposed of by way of this common order, as the crime involved in these three cases is one and the same. 2. The CrimI-naI Petitions have been filed under sections 480 and-483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity [the BNSSJ), seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 8 on bail in cr.No.114 2025 of Chandarlapadu Police Station, NTR Commissionerate District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 8 herein for the offence punishable under sections 108, 351(2) read with 190 of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhitha; 20231. 1the BNS CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: ( 4 L- 3. `Material averments Stemming from the Prosecution are that On 31.05.2025, between 21:30 hours and 22:00 hours, at Veladikothapalem village, 'chandarlapadu Mandal, the deceased K9tha Tirupathirao, was allegedly assaulted at his residence by a group Of individuals comprising Nalladi Arjunarao, Chinthoti Koteswararao, Chinthoti Rajarao, Chinthoti prudhvirao, Gude Nageswararao, Gude Srinivasarao, and Gude Tirupatirao. lt is further alleged that the said assailants, at the time of the incident, Were unclothed and acted in concert with one Nalladi Venkateswararao, who also physically assaulted the deceased and made telephonic communication to an unidentified person during the course of the incident. It is the prosecutionJs case that the deceased had previously submitted a petition through the Praja Grievance Redressal System (PGRS) to the District Collector of NTR District, wherein he had alleged that Nalladi V;-nkateswararao was en'gaged in the unlawful sale of liquor within the village. The said complaint is stated to have been the motive for the alleged assault. 4. Subsequent to the incident, the deceased iS Said tO have Suffered severe mental trauma and emotional distress. On 31.07.2025, he allegedly consumed a poisonous substance (pesticide.) at his residence w-lth the intent to end his life. He was immediately shifted to A.G.H. Nandigama for medical treatment, where he was declared dead by the attending medical Officer. The complaint in the present matter was lodged by the wife of the deceased, Kotha Rajani, on 01.08.2025 at 23:30 hours. The prosecution seeks to establish {h.at the unlawful assault and humiliation suffered by the deceased at the hands of the accused persons directly led to his suicide, thereby attracting penal consequences under rel`evant provisions of the Indian penal code. CONTE NTIONS OFTHE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITION ER 5. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned SenI'Or Counsel appearI-ng On behalf of Sri Kilaru Nithin Krishna, learned counsel for the petI'tiOnerS SubmI'tS that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely I'mPliCated in the alleged offence, and that there is no prJ-ma fac,-e material or cogent evidence connecting the Petitioners to the commI'SSiOn Of the crime. It is further contended that the Petl'tioners are the sole earning members of their families and that their incarceration would result in grave hardship and l'rreparable prejudice to their dependents. The Petitioners undertake to comply with any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper {o impose while considering the prayer for grant of baI-I. 6. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the alleged first incident occurred on 01.06.2025, whereas the husband of the de-facto complainan{ unfortunately took an extreme step of ending his life occurred on 31.07.2025. Nearly two months after alleged humiliation. There was no nexus of the alleged humiliation {o drive the husband of the de-facto complainant took an extreme step to commit suicide. `lngredients of section 306 of 'the I.P.C.,' would not attract the case on hand and'urged to enlarge the petitioners on bail as the Petitioners are languishing in jail for the past 39 days and the chargesrleet iS also filed after thorough investigation on o3.10.2025. There r- ,.'. _ 6 . exists no apprehension of the Petitioners absconding Or evading the due process of law. The Petitioners have extended full cooperation in the COurSe Of investigat'lon and undertakes to continue such cooperation in all future proceedings. ln view of,the foregoing, it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 7. Percor,fra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail+, asserting that the investigation iS at a nascent and Grit.ical stage. It is submitted that the premature enlargement Of the petitioners on bail would be inimical to the Sanctity and efficacy Of the ongoing investigative process and may engender deliberate non-cooperation on the part of the petitioners. The prosecution further raises an apprehension that, if released, petitioners may exert undue influence upon, or intimidate, prosecution witnesses, thereby impeding the administration of justice and vitiating the evidentiary foundation of the case. lt is also contended that there exists a palpable and imminent risk of the Petitioners absconding, thereby frustrating the due process of law. 8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that because Of the continuous conduct and harassment of the petitioners deceased was forced to commit suicide. The conduct of the Petitioners left the deceased With nO option except to commit suicide. `Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan2, at paragraph Nos.18.2 to 18.9 and 20.2.8 it is held as under: 2 2025 SCC Online SC 1702 in the absence Perverse. ":::2^.:Jp~_Frahlad Singh Bhati v. NOT of Delhi, this court laid down guiding principles: "!9)_Whi.I.e grafting _bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accus.atipns, but the severity of the punishment, if the ;ccusatjon ent=;I-s c,p`nv_iction and the nature of evideirce in support of the accusations. (P! _Re,ason.able _apprehensions Of the WitneSS6s being tamperid--;i{ir-or the ?.P:RLr?Psn_s_i?_pl .of ,there P,eing. a thr.ea! .for_ the complai-nant Should also -wi;ofh vyith_ the court in the matter of grant of bail. (.cL)_W~h_i!:_!t_i: rot exF!eCted tO Ppve.the erltire evidence establishing the guilt of i,h^e^:sc~c_ULS_e|!_2:s¥o_nldnreasonpPIe doubt. byt.there ought always i; i; aoi;;a fppie_s?ti?I.act.ion of the court in support of the charg:. (^d,)^fr:v_pI!tly_.i_n_P=rP:5cutiP,n ,shPu!P. always_ be cd;nsidered and it is only the e!,eT^e:rt~o_fig?_n!,i_n_ePess,th9t,.shall.have iro be considered in the ;ait-e;dig;;;i ?I_ _b?_i!_,_ ?rd i,p the. event of there being some doubt as to the ge-frdihi;eo::-;f the,pros.?cu.fi.pn, in the normal cours;of events, the accused i: 6-;{i-tis-J{; :; order of bail." 1.8.,?. ln .Puran v. Fambilas, it was held that a bail order can be set aside even of post-bail misconduct if it is found to be unjustified, illegal, or 1D8:4_,^SiT!l,aJrly,,_ _iln _Pr_-.N,arepdra K.. Aapin v. State of Gujarat, a three-Judge Belch P?ld thet_ consideration of irrelevant materials r;nde;s th-i;-i=iI--drr5:r vulnerable and liable to be set aside. 1,.8.5.. I.p .Pra_santa Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, this Court held that where the ,HigP .Co!rt grant_s bail mechanically and wiithout application of-ir;;-Ji-o material.factc?rs such as the gravity of the offence a-r-antecedents of th-e accused, such an order must be set aside. 1P.P. ln. Era.kesP Kadamv. Ramprasad Viswanath Gupta, this Court qistinguishe_P between cancellation of bail by the same cou-rf End annuirvi6;i by an appellate/revisional court. lt observed: ".18. In cpnsidering whether to cancel the bail the court has also to consider tip_e_ gravi.i,y and nptu.re o.I the pffpnce, prima facie case against the accri-:ed, t!,:__p_ps_ition an.d pt.?nding of th_e_ eccused, etc. lf ther-e are very se;i6irS allpgatiors_ against the accused his bail may be cancelled even if i;e has ni,i mwb!1h;en9:eiSf±ttdenhrT£ahh#+a:he£hti^CgEgo;ituaeeS#i:of##he!tr#ancct£o£:rdrsrfb€a£l#::r5awna:t!£hroamEba=oy##b;a: fsag£r£c:ega:II:ee::ffigdnea!I:e:hS:entg to cancel the bail." 1.9..7. In_ Nee(u Yadav v. State of UP, this court annulled a bail order where the High.Coyr[__had ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused and-;ei;ed me?ha.nicall_y qn parity. lt held that consideration of irrelevant factors- i;;d omjss.ion of relevant considerations renders the order perverse. As ih; ;i;It noted: "_1_5:_.. ._.: ,lt_is, clear a? a c.lpudless sky.tp9f the High Court has totally ignored the ?r!Ti_I_a! ,a.ntec?dent: of.tPp pccus_ed. Wh_at ha;weighed with the 'Hi-gh-ctofuri-its the FIoctrine of parity. A history-sheeter involved in-the nature of crfiini:s-vi-iriJh Ye ha.v? reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he-i-s -i-bi-tb bL:. r_e:a!f3_?_i,n c,u.stody, b.¥t the crirleS are Of heinous nature a;a-su-ch-c'rii;;:, by ,po st:etch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune, such c-a:i;-a;~;;i:ira a_ _tPpp.der apd .Jig_Ptnipg having the efffect poteriti-ality of torr6h{i=I-r-ir;-i;-;n a+nha^l_y!c?I.,_mind_.1TP=_I_?y_ :xpects the.iud.iciary tp be alert wh;i6 -i6wiii±i7;a thP=_eL_k_i±n_d± _ Of aCCuS?d -P_er_Sons {O be ;i larg-e ---atira,--i-is-iri;I-;;:;i#e -e_P_phasi= is on exercise 6f discretion juc]iciousI; -an~i -;6t -;;a-wi#iny#s;:=l manner." It further clarified: "18. Before parting with the case, we may repeat with Profit that it iS not an appeal for canceIIati_on of bail as the cancellation is not sought because of ervenin circumstances. The annulment of the order assed b Court is sought as many relevant factors have not been taken into c2Qflird_expa_lion Which includes the criminal antecedents of the accused and that q]_a_kes the order a deviant one. Therefore, the inevitable result is the lancination of the im ned order." 18.8. ln Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NOT of Delhi), this Court reiterated that while no exhaustive list can be laid down, courts must always consider the totality of circumstances, including the seriousness of the offence, prima facie evidence, and potential for interference with the trial. 18.9. In State of Kerala v. Mahesh, it was observed that even under Article 136, where interference with bail orders is rare, this Court will exercise its powers if the bail order is found to be lacking application of mind or based on irrelevant considerations. 20.2.8. ln Dinesh M.N. (SP) v. State of GujaraP, the court clarified: "Even though the re-appreciation of the evidence as done by the court granting bail is to be avoided, the court dealing with an application for cancellation of bail under section 439(2) can consider whether irrelevant materials were taken into consideration. That is so because it is not known as to what extent the irrelevant materials weighed with the court for accepting the prayer for bail."" 9. ln view of the gravity and allegations, coupled with the potential threat posed to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioners are not entitled to the indulgence of discretionary relief and it is urged to dismiss the present Criminal Petitions. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 10. ln view of the rival submissions advanced by both the learned Counsel and upon a perusal of the prosecutorial narrative, the pivotal issue now meriting for consideration is: "Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?" ANALYSIS: ll. The wife of the deceased submitted a report to the Station House officer, chandarlapadu police station alleging that about two months ago her 3(2008) 5 SCC66 husband was nakedly paraded in the centre of the vI'llage and beaten by the Petitioners indI-SCrI`mina{ely with hands and legs and also chappals, later he was unable to bear the humiliation and committed suicide by consuming pesticides. 12. A perusal of the statement of the deceased recorded in crime No.75/2025 dated 01.06.2025 reveals no averment or reference to the alleged incident of the deceased having been paraded nakedly in the centre of the village of the deceased. It appears that the wI'fe Of the deceased developed Or exaggerated her grievance in her report to the police, which was registered as a case in Crime No.114/2025. 13. Initially the complaint of the de-facto complainant was registered as death due to poison under section 194 of cthe BNSS' (Section 174 of fthe Cr.P.C.I). It was later modified to offence punishable under sections 108, 351 (2) read with 3(5) of {the BNS'. CONCLUSION: 14. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the Petitioner, in View Of the fact that the entire investigation has been completed and the Petitioners have been in the judicial custody from o3.08.2025, this Court is inclined to enlarge them on bail with the following stringent conditions. : i,. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 8 shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing a boncl for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (-Rupees twenty five thousand only), with two --r d 10 sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, Nandigama. ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos,1 to 8 shall not cause any kind of threat or harassment or inducement to the de-facto complainant or any eye-witnesses. In the event of any such act, the Station House Officer, Chandarlapadu Police Station is at liberty to approach' this court for cancellation of bail granted to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 8. iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 'to 8 shall appear before learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama for a period of two months on every first IV. Saturday of every month to regulate their conduct. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 8 shall `hot leave -th-e limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 8 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 8 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any Person acquainted With the facts Of the Case SO aS {O dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. I Tiiiii± I,? I- I____ __ __ \ 15. ll viI-. The PetitI'Oners/Accu;ed Nos.1 to 8 shall surrender their Passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have a passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating officer. Accordingly, criml'nal petiti'ons are allowed. I. cz SD/-M. PRABHAKAR RAO TRUE COPY,, ASSISTAgrTRAR For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, 1. The Additional JudI'CI'al First Class Magistrate, Nandigama. 2. The XVI AddjtjonaI District and sessions Judge, Nandigama. 3. The Station House Officer, Chandarlapadu police station, NTR CommissI-Onerate District. 4. The Superintendent, Nanddigama sub-JaiIJ N.T.R. District. 5. One CC to Sri Kilaru NI'{hin Krishna, Advocate [opuc] 6. One CC to Sri AkhI'l KrI-Shnan, Advocate [opuc] 7. Two CCs Public Prosecutor, A.P. High Court, Amaravati [ouT] 8. One spare copy CVSS HIGH COURT Dr.YLR,J DATED:07/10/2025 ORDER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.9906, 9908 & 9910 of 2025 ALLOWED 1_¢,€t.-