APHC010454692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9027/2025 Between: 1. P JYOTHI ALIAS JOTHI, NAME MENTIONED AS PER FIR S/O SUBIRAMANI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST, AADHAR NO 4054 7307 4489, DOOR NO 1/123, KIZHANDA STREET, ARUMBAKKAM VILLAGE, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT. 2. J PUSHPA RAJ, NAME NOT MENTIONED IN FIR S/O JYOTHI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. OCCUPATION JOB SEARCHING, AADHAR NO 6971 5929 6240, DOOR NO 1/123, KIZHANDA STREET, ARUMBAKKAM VILLAGE, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT. 3. V JAGADEESAN, NAME MENTIONED AS PER FIR S/O VENKATESAN, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. OCCUPATION JOB SEARCHING, AADHAR NO 4138 8908 7830, DOOR NO 1/81, KOVIL STREET, ARUMBAKKAM VILLAGE, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT. 4. THIRUMALAI ALIAS M THIRUMALAI, NAME MENTIONED AS PER FIR S/O S.MURALI HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. OCCUPATION JOB SEARCHING, AADHAR NO 4350 2587 8858, DOOR NO 1/113, SENJUKHAN CROSS STREET, ARUMBAKKAM VILLAGE, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. R RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O RAMU REDDY, ARUMBAKKAM VILLAGE, ARUMBAKKAM POST, TIRUTTANI TALUK, 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9027 of 2025 Dated 29.10.2025 TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, T.N., OCCUPATION ADVOCATE. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): SATHEESH KUMAR EERLA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. JAYA PRAKASH MADASU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioners/Accused Nos.6 to 9 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.41 of 2025 of Vijayapuram Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. This Court, vide order dated 22.09.2025, dismissed the petition against petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.7 and 8, as they were already arrested, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Hence, the petition against petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.7 and 8 is dismissed. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9027 of 2025 Dated 29.10.2025 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. As seen from the record, this Court in Crl.P.No.7924 of 2025 dismissed the pre-arrest bail petition filed by Accused No.5. Initially, Accused Nos.1 to 3 gave confessional statements stating that they alone had indulged in the commission of the alleged offence. Later, a custody petition was filed, and Accused Nos.1 to 3 were taken into police custody. During the said custody, they gave statements implicating the petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 9 as also being involved in the commission of the alleged offence. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were subsequently released on default bail by the learned Magistrate concerned. The petitioner/Accused No.6 is a rowdy sheeter bearing No.80, and similarly, the petitioner/Accused No.9 is also a rowdy sheeter bearing No.20. 5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter contending that there were previous enmities between the de-facto complainant and Accused Nos.1 to 3 and that there was also a civil dispute between them. On an earlier occasion, at the behest of the deceased, a criminal case was registered against some of the accused 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9027 of 2025 Dated 29.10.2025 on the ground that they attempted to do away with the life of the deceased. Originally, the FIR was registered as a case of suspicious death. So far, only twelve witnesses have been examined, and the investigation is still at a nascent stage. 6. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 9, this Court is not inclined to grant pre- arrest bail to the petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 9, as it would amount to giving a shield, or protection or license to the petitioners who had allegedly caused severe injuries to the victims, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)2. 7. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no merits to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 9. Hence, the 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: 29.10.2025 RSI 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 2(2020) 5 SCC 1 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9027 of 2025 Dated 29.10.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9027 of 2025 Date: 29.10.2025 RSI