APHC010521382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10184 OF 2025 Between: 1. D NAVEEN, S/O D. BALA KRISHNA,AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC STUDENT,R/O 1/386, CHEMMUMIYYA PETA VILLAGE,KADAPA CITY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT - 516003. 2. D AJAY, S/O D. BALA KRISHNA,AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,R/O 1/386, CHEMMUMIYYA PETA VILLAGE,KADAPA CITY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT - 516003 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati. Kadapa Taluk Police Station, Kadapa District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P B REDDY 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 Petitioner/Accused No.2 and 4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.237 of 2025 of Kadapa Taluk Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 109, 118(1) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.07.2025 at 11.30 p.m in front of the Accused house at Chemmumaihpeta, Kadapa City, the Accused and his associates, being in possession of deadly weapons went upon the defacto complainant with an intention to do away his life, tried to stab him, but the defacto complainant escaped from the hit and left from the spot, thereafter, the Accused Nos.2 to 4 chased the defacto complainant and his occupants and beat him indiscriminately and caused severe bleeding injuries. Hence the above case was registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Dr. P.B.Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant proceedings and asserts that no offence, as alleged in the complaint, has been committed by him. It is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinner of his family, and any coercive action, including arrest, would result in grave and irreparable hardship to his dependent family members. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are law-abiding citizens with a permanent place of residence and is willing to comply with any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioners undertake to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assures the Court of his continued presence as and when required. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also submits that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and that custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioners have already extended full cooperation to the Investigating Officer and there exists no reasonable apprehension of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence and it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 4, in the interest of justice and equity. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and sensitive stage, and that custodial interrogation of the Petitioners are indispensable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioners on pre-arrest bail at this juncture would seriously impede the investigative process, as there exists a grave apprehension that the Petitioners may not extend requisite cooperation and may attempt to evade the due process of law. 6. The prosecution further contends that the Petitioners, if granted the relief sought, may exert undue influence upon material witnesses or tamper with incriminating evidence, thereby vitiating the integrity of the investigation and obstructing the course of justice. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential prejudice to a fair and impartial inquiry, it is prayed that the instant application be dismissed in the interest of justice and to safeguard the sanctity of the investigative process. 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: 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, there are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 4 that they have beat the defacto complainant with stones and also sticks. The defacto complainant suffered simple injuries. There are eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence; they are LWs 2 to 6. The relief under Section 482 of „the BNSS‟ is intended to safeguard personal liberty, but not to thwart the legitimate course of investigation or to protect those who are prima facie complicit in grave offences involving overt acts. In view of the specific overt acts, this Court is not inclined to grant discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners. CONCLUSION: 10. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, coupled with the nature and gravity of the specific allegations attributed to the Petitioners, this Court finds no justifiable ground to exercise discretion under Section 482 of „the BNSS‟. The allegations prima facie discloses a serious offence warranting thorough investigation, and the Petitioners, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not merit the relief of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected. 11. Hence, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 10.10.2025 KK THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10191 OF 2025 10.10.2025 KK