1 APHC010530852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10311/2025 Between: Peddineni Srinivasulu, and others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. SHAIK MD UMAR ABDULLAH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. 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.8 and 9, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.66 of 2025 of Komarolu Police Station, Prakasam District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 189(3), 191(3), 115(2), 109(1) read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNS‟). 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that the de facto complainant, in his statement dated 31.07.2025, stated that one Peddineni Ramanaiah owned 1.5 acres of land in Gonepalli village, which was later divided among his heirs, and an extent of Ac.0.75 cents fell to the complainant‟s share. After Ramanaiah‟s demise, his wife, Smt. Lakshmi Devi, sold the said land to Accused No.1, leading to disputes between the parties. On 30.07.2025 at about 18:00 hours, Accused No.1 allegedly entered the land with a tractor and ploughed it, and when the complainant and his relatives objected, Accused Nos.1 to 7 and others formed an unlawful assembly and attacked them with sticks, axes, and other weapons, causing injuries and prompting the present complaint. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr. Shaik MD Umar Abdulla, learned counsel for the Petitioners respectfully submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioners are the sole earning members of their families, and their arrest would cause irreparable hardship to their dependents. The Petitioners are willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioners have got fixed abode. 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioners and custodial interrogation period was over and such custody is not 3 warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.8 and 9 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners are imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that they may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 6. It is further urged that the prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioners may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the integrity of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 4 8. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. As seen from the record, the Petitioners/Accused Nos.8 and 9 are alleged to have assaulted the de-facto complainant and others. However, their names are not found in the statement of the de-facto complainant recorded by the police. Their alleged involvement was stated by L.Ws.10 to 13. Petitioner No.1 is the son of Petitioner No.2. There exists a dispute between the petitioners, the other accused, and the de-facto complainant with respect to certain land. The de-facto complainant lodged a report which was registered as FIR No.66 of 2025, while Accused No.1 lodged a counter-case in Crime No.67 of 2025. There is a delay of 48 hours in registering both the case and the counter-case. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled the Petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant pre- arrest bail to the Petitioner. CONCLUSION: 11. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions: 5 i. In the event of their arrest, the Petitioners shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioner shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioners shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a month i.e., on any Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. v. The Petitioners shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 08.10.2025 KMS 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10311 of 2025 Date:08.10.2025 7 KMS