APHC010621582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11947/2025 Between: ALAPAKULA SAI THARUN ALIAS TARUN, S/O SRINIVASULU,AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,R/O SIVAGIRI COLONY, MULAPETA NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu,Amaravati, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.11947 of 2025 Dated 01.12.2025 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 No.7 on bail in Crime No.16 of 2025 of Kandaleru Police Station, Sri Potti Sriramulu, Nellore District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.7 herein for the offences punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS Act’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Mr.Balu Anil Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is at the impressionable age of 25 years. He has been in judicial custody for more than 190 days. He was falsely implicated in this case. He has got fixed abode. He has old-aged parents depending upon his earnings. He is ready to abide by any conditions if this Court deems fit to impose by enlarging the petitioner on bail. He further submits that the witnesses of the prosecution are all circumstantial evidence and the role of the petitioner has come to light based on the confession of the accused. The petitioner has been suffering from arthritis. Accused Nos.3 and 6 were already enlarged on bail, and it is urged to allow the petition. 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.11947 of 2025 Dated 01.12.2025 4. Per contra, Ms. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that there is no change of circumstances from the date of dismissal of the first bail application till the date of filing the present second bail application. Accused Nos.3 and 6 were enlarged on bail as there were no specific allegations against them. The prosecution points out that on the day of the rekki conducted by the accused, the presence of the petitioner was recorded in CCTV footage. There is another CCTV footage which recorded the presence of the petitioner along with other accused at the time of commission of the alleged offence. Hence, it is urged to dismiss this petition. 5. As seen from the record, this Court in Crl.P.No.11050 of 2025, vide order dated 03.11.2025, dismissed the first bail application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the accusation was well founded for the filing of the charge sheet. This Court enlarged Accused Nos.3 and 6 on bail as their role in the commission of the alleged offence was related to be milder in nature. Accused No.3 was released on the ground that he had just accompanied the other accused. Accused No.6 was released on the ground that he was only the driver of the vehicle. 6. The allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.7 is that he restrained the hands of the deceased when Accused No.5 held the deceased by his throat. Accused No.4 repeatedly assaulted and punched him on the face, ribs, and all over the body to subdue him. Later, Accused No.5 handed over a Matchu katthi to Accused No.4, who slit the throat of the deceased, resulting in 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.11947 of 2025 Dated 01.12.2025 instantaneous death. Accused Nos.3 to 7 together burned the blood-stained clothes worn by Accused Nos.4 and 5. The car in which they travelled with a fake number plate was also destroyed. There is no change of circumstance from the day of dismissal of the earlier bail application till the date of filing the present bail application. Detention of the petitioner in judicial custody for a long time is not a ground for enlarging the petitioner on bail. The accusation against the petitioner is well founded. The Court at this juncture cannot appreciate the point of argument that the nature of the evidence is in admissible under the provisions of ‘the Evidence Act’. In this case, the prosecution has not even examined the prime witnesses in the trial. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.7, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.7. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 01.12.2025 RSI/PRA 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.11947 of 2025 Dated 01.12.2025 36 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11947 of 2025 Date: 01.12.2025 RSI/PRA