APHC010459672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9139/2025 Between: Sandrapalli Mastan Alias Mastanaiah ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. G VIJAYA SARADHI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.16 of 2025 of Kandaleru Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 2 103(2), 140(1), 61(2), 238 and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the case of the prosecution are that as the father of the complainant did not come home after closing his shop, the son approached the police. During the search, the dead body of the deceased/father of the complainant was found near Kandaleru dam road. On the information police registered the case and investigated. During the investigation, it was found that accused No.1 was in a romantic relationship with the daughter of the deceased, the deceased arranged marriage of his daughter with his relative; to stop the marriage, accused No.1 conspired with accused No.2 and with the help of the other accused, the deceased was abducted in a car and later murdered on 16.05.2025. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr.G.Vijaya Saradhi, 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. 3 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the process of law. The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. The petitioner is MBA holder. He loved the daughter of the deceased. He has not committed any offence. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akila 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 does not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 4 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. This Court dismissed the Crl.P.No.9189 of 2025 on 18.09.2025 filed by the accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 for grant of regular bail. The allegation against the petitioner/accused No.1 is that he gave supari to accused Nos.2 to 7 for murder of the deceased. The motive behind the alleged murder is that the daughter of deceased fell in love with accused No.1. The accused was arrested on 23.05.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 119 days. The accusation against the petitioner is well founded. Primary charge sheet was filed on 19.08.2025 within 90 days statutory period, and the case is presently at the P.R.C. stage. The final charge sheet has not yet been filed, as the report from the F.S.L. is awaited. In view of the fact that the accusation is well founded against the petitioner. At this juncture, request of the petitioner for enlarging him on bail is not convincing and reasonable. 9. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to consider request of petitioner for enlarging the petitioner on bail. 5 10. 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: 19.09.2025 S D P 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9139 of 2025 Date:19.09.2025 S D P