APHC010494052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9813/2025 Between: BATTINA AMARA SANDEEP, S/O. B. VENKATA PADMA RAO AGED 32 YEARS, OCC TRANSPORT BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO. 61-22/3-29/1, RAGITH BHARGAVA STREET, NEAR VINOD PUBLIC SCHOOL, RAMALINGESWARA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA-520013. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, through the S.H.O. Patamata P.S., Vijayawada, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: RAJA DAMOJI RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9813 of 2025 Dated 25.09.2025 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 petitioner/Accused No.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.275 of 2025 of Patamata Police Station, NTR Commissionerate, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 312 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the offence occurred on 29.05.2025 at about 17.25 hours, at Muthoot Mini Finance Limited, Donka Road, Patamata, Vijayawada, and reported on the same day at about 19.00 hours, wherein the complainant stated that she was working in Muthoot Mini Finance Limited and was residing with her family at the address mentioned above. On 29.05.2025 at about 17.25 hours, while the complainant and her colleague Bhavani were in the cashier’s room, two unknown male offenders entered the room, threatened them with a knife stating that they would kill them, and demanded that they should open the strong room. The complainant immediately pressed the alarm switch, upon which the offenders fled from the place. No property was lost. Hence, the FIR. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9813 of 2025 Dated 25.09.2025 3. Sri T.Raja Damoji Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The petitioner was falsely implicated by the police. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law, and it is urged to dismiss the petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9813 of 2025 Dated 25.09.2025 6. As seen from the record, based on the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 183 of ‘the BNSS’ and the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant, the accused is required to be identified through a Test Identification Parade to be conducted in the presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate. Accused No.1 gave a confession against the petitioner/Accused No.2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with Accused No.1, trespassed into the Muthoot Finance Branch at Vijayawada and attempted to commit robbery of gold ornaments by placing a knife on the neck of the de-facto complainant and by using criminal force. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there are specific allegations attributed against the petitioner. Therefore, there are no merits to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 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: 25.09.2025 RSI 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9813 of 2025 Dated 25.09.2025 54 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9813 of 2025 Date:25.09.2025 RSI