IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV^ THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11142 OF 2025 Between: S.Simon @ Simon, S/o. C.Simson, Aged about 25 years, R/o. Door No. 13- 69-1, Harijanawada, Satyavedu, Tirupati District ...Petitioner/Accused-1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, through the Station House Officer, Sathyavedu Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. ...Respondent Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the Petitioner/Accused on bail during enquiry and trail in in Crime No. 75 of 2025 of Sathyavedu Police Station, Chittoor District and the alleged offences under section 109(1) read with section 3(5) of BNSS. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI RAM BABU DEVAVARAPU Advocate for the Petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent, and the Court made the following ORDER: 6 APHC010575222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) \ [3521] I I THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11142/2Q2fi $ Between: 1.S SIMON ALIAS SIMON, S/0. C.SIMSON,AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 13-69-1,HARIJANAWADA, SATYAVEDU TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, through the Station House Officer,Sathyavedu Police Station,Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High court of Andhra Pradesh,Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: TRAM BABU DEVAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 483 of the seeking to on bail in Crime No.75 of 2025 of # 2 Satyavedu Police Station, Tirupathi District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Section 109(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ram Babu Devavarapu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner has been in the judicial custody for the past 77 days. Material portion of the investigation is completed. Petitioner is a law abiding citizen. Petitioner was married and has got two kids. Antecedents whatsoever exist against the Petitioner have no relevance for consideration, inasmuch as the Petitioner is deemed to be innocent till the guilt is proved. Injured suffered only simple injuries. The Petitioner would abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. Petitioner is falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence and it is urged to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. 3. 4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that there are six criminal antecedents against the Petitioner. Investigation is at progressive stage. Some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. There are eyewitnesses to the occurrence, and it is urged to dismiss the Petition. % 3 5. As seen from the record, there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner/Accused No.1. There is a delay of nearly 21 hours in lodging the FIR. Offence was taken place on 15.07.2025, but the FIR lodged on 16.07.2025. Nearly after two months of the alleged offence Petitioner was arrested on 20.09.2025. Petitioner has been custody for the past 77 days. was in the judicial 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor although submits that there criminal antecedents against the Petitioner and the are six Petitioner is a rowdy sheeter, but it doesn’t have any relevance while granting a regular bail for two counts: first is Petitioner presumed to be innocent till the guilt is proved; and the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh^ at para No.7 observed that mere existence of similar criminal adverse antecedents cannot be basis for refusal of bail; Second IS, in a regular bail no relevance because the Petitioner’s liberty at stake because of the investigation pending for months together. Admittedly, in this case the injured suffered simple injuries. So far five witnesses application antecedents have IS are examined, and they are all material witnesses. 7. Considering the gravity of the case and the nature of the allegations, completion of material portion of the investigation, in the circumstance of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail with certain stringent conditions. ^2020) 11 see 648 4 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following strina!?nt conditions: The Petitioner/Accused No.1. shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathyavedu. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not enter into the Tirupathi District for two months, iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned, iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. V. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required, vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer, vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. ‘ I. II. SD/-U.SR! DEVI DEPUTY pREG!,STRAR SE(5flON OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Station House Officer, Sathyavedu Police Station, Chittoor District. 2. The Civil Judge (Junior Division) - cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathyavedu, Chittoor District. 3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4. One CC to SRI. RAM BABU DEVAVARAPU, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. One spare copy KN HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED:04/12/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.11142 of 2025 DIRECTION ij CD ' a a att CP m m <_> ! &0 cX> >•