lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl /~.` ;/-i:/ WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO ``,` CRIMINAL PETI"ON NO: 10317 OF 2025 •l:,:+. .i.`.I:-: : -;, Between : sri Rajasekhar Gandhipogu, S/o. Kataiah, aged about 35 years, Occ Business, R/o. Ganeswarapuram Village Varikuntapadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent/Complainant petition under sections 480 & 483 of BNSSl 2023 (under sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973), 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 enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.66/2025, of Kondapuram Police Station, SPSR NeIIore District. counsel forthe petitioner : sri venkat Rao Ravulapalli counsel for the Respondent : Ms.Akhila Naidu, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following ORDER: =++ Dr. YLR, I CrI.P.No.10317 of 2O25 Doted O8.1 a.2O25 The Court made the fo][owing: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity lthe BNSS]), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.66 of 2025 of Kondapuram Police Station, SPSR NellJre District, was registered against the petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 324 (4) read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity [the BNS') and Section 5 of the Explosives Substance Act. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.07.2025 at 20.00 hours, at a distance of 200 meters near yerrabotlapalli Village, Kondapuram Mandal, accused Nos.1 and 2 dug pits 10 feet deep and allegedly placed detonators and explosives at around 15 locations for white stone removal using a Hitachi Excavator vehicle. When the villagers arrived at the scene, Accused No.3, the driver of the HitaChi Excavator, fled. The villagers then reported the illegal mining activities.to the Village Revenue Officer, statingi that the land in question, which covers an area of 2.10 acres in Sy.No.159-1, is government- owned. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PE"TIONER: q. Dr. YLR, J CrI.P.No.10317 of 2O25 Dated 08.10.2O25 3. Sri Venkat Rao Ravulapalli, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent c,f the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking him tO the commission of the crime. lt is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to his dependents. 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 a permanent place Of residence and there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the Process of law. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigat'IOn thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. lt 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, petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the Petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per confra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Ass'lstant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed to grant of bail and prosecution further apprehend that the petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. lt is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioner abscond'lng and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential 'threat tO the E! _Z iE+ Dr. YLR, J CrI-P-No.10317 of 2025 Dated 08.10.2025 Progress Of the investigation, l't` is submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand I't iS urged to dI'SmiSS the bail pe[itjoh. 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. ln the II'ght Of the Case Of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides,.now the point for consideratI-On iS: "Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?'' ANALYSIS: 8. As seen from the record, the father. of the petitioner/A-1 and the Petitioner/A-2 filed Crl.P.No.8566 of 2025, vihl-ch was partly allowed v,-de order dated 30.08.2025, granting pre-arrest bail -to the father of the petI'tiOner/A-1 and rejecting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/A-2. Later, the petitioner surrendered before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate and was sent to judicial custody on 09.09.2025. He has been jn judicI-al custody for the past 30 days. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Ganeswarapuram village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, and he has got fixed abode. so far, seven witnesses have been examined. The material portl'on of the investigation, insofar as the role of the petI'tiOner iS COnCerned, has been 1.i • rf-` -i.rty_ RE •fty?tp Dr. YLR, J CrI.P.No.1O317 of 2O25 Dated 08_10.2025 completed by examining these seven witnesses. The learned Assistant Public prosecutor submits that L.Ws.2 to 7 are eyewitnesses. No petition seeking the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was filed before the learned trial court. 9. Considering the period of detention undergone by the petitioner/Accused No.2, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner, and his alleged role played in the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/accused No.2 on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:OO am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. iii. The peti`tioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concemecI. c`--` l` Dr. YLR, J CrI.P.No.10317 of 2025 Dated 08.10.2025 iv. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused No.2 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. v. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not, dI'reCtly 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. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-M.SRINIVAS :ES: :Sz¥SR`T RA R For To] 1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, SPSR Nellore. 2. The Station House Officer, Ari]ova Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, SPSR Nellore District. 4. One CC to Sri Venkat Rao F3avulapalli, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs Public Prosecutor, A.P. High Court, Amaravati [OUT] 6. One spare copy CVSS HIGH COURT Dr.YLR,J DATED:08/10/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.10317 of 2025 ALLOWED o 9 0CTquE