APHC010476482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9502/2025 Between: Bosi Venkata Paramesh ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of A P ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner- accused No.10 on bail in Crime No.166 of 2025 of Tadipatri Police Station, Ananthapuram District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 49 read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the case of the prosecution are that on 14.07.2025 at about 10.30 p.m., in front of the house of Jagadeeshwar Reddy @ Jaggi, Kalavagadda Street, Tadipatri Town, the accused No.1 and the deceased/Hareesh @ Harsha were committing atrocities and gradually ill- feelings cropped up between them over the supremacy and financial transaction issues, due to which the accused No.1 threatened the deceased that he would see the end as he was talking badly about him and wandering with someone other than him. Later, on 14.07.2025 at about 6.00 p.m., the deceased had gone to the house of accused No.1, warned him, kicked the house doors, damaged the cameras and humiliated the accused No.1. Keeping the above incident in the mind, the accused No.1 and some others went at the deceased on motor cycles with hunting sickles, attacked and hacked the deceased by chasing him and caused multiple bleeding injuries on head and over the body and further the deceased was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Tadipatri, there the doctors referred the deceased to Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu, where the doctor examined and declared as brought dead. Basing on the complaint of complainant, who is mother of deceased, the case was registered against the accused. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged 3 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. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation thus far and assure continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is further submitted that there are no adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner, and the petitioner was not present at the alleged scene of the offence. No witnesses have stated that the petitioner was involved in the commission of the offence. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the FIR mentions the alleged offence occurred on 14.07.2025 at 10:00 p.m. on a Monday, while the charge sheet states that on 14.07.2025 at 9:56 p.m., accused No.1 made a phone call to accused No.10 and within a span of less than four minutes, the alleged offence occurred. It is highly difficult to believe that the alleged offence took place under these circumstances. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant further custodial detention, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. 4 ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 6. Per contra, Ms.Akhila 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 pose a threat to the witnesses of prosecution and 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, it is submitted that the petitioner do not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 8. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. The allegation against the petitioner/accused No. 10 is that he was involved in the murder of the deceased. After a thorough investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The accusation against the petitioner is well-founded, and the charge sheet was filed within 90 days of the petitioner’s arrest. There 5 are call data records linking accused Nos.1 and 10. The petitioner acted as an abettor. Therefore, the request for the grant of bail to the petitioner/accused No.10 at this juncture is neither reasonable nor convincing. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. CONCLUSION: 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant relief at this stage. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:13.10.2025, S D P 6 HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9502 OF 2025 DATE: 13.10.2025 S D P