APHC010503982025 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: 9915/2025 Between: Pinnamaneni Manoj ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. B.SUDHAKAR KUMAR 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.10, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.45 of 2025 of Cheepurupalli Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 309(4), 309(6), 311, 331(8) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short „the BNS‟). 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that one Suresh along with family went for pilgrimage on 17.05.2025 for holy dip in river in Uttarakhand State. While going for pilgrimage, he has kept his mother in law Chittamma in his house to accompany his mother Kasturibayi. On 24.05.2025 at 1 hours unknown culprits entered into Kasturibayi‟s house by break open the northern side door in the first floor. While committing robbery, unknown culprits beat Chittamma on right hand and on right eye with an iron rod and caused bleeding injuries. Later unknown culprits went into the kitchen, brought chilli powder and threw it into the eyes of Chittamma and Kasturibayi, later Kasturibayi sustained grievous bleeding injury after the accused beat her on forehead with an iron rod with a view to cause death. The unknown culprits robbed ornaments of Chittamma and robbed gold chain from Kasturibayi‟s neck and stole gold ornaments after break open the iron safe in the pooja room, thereby a report was filed before the police and a case in Crime No.45 of 2025 was registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr. B.Sudkhakar Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of her family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court 3 may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and custodial interrogation period was over and such custody is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has 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 Petitioner/Accused No.10 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Mr. 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 Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he 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 Petitioner 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. 4 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 Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. The allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.10 is that he acted as the driver of a vehicle in which he knowingly picked up and dropped some of the accused after the commission of the offence. It is also alleged that he participated in the recce conducted prior to the commission of the offence. The petitioner is the uncle of Accused No.4. All the accused are alleged to have committed a robbery by severely beating L.Ws.2 and 3, both elderly women, and stealing 17 tulas of gold ornaments from them. The police have already recovered 5 tulas of gold. Accused Nos.1 to 9 were arrested and have since been enlarged on bail. Accused No.6 was granted regular bail by this Court. The present petition has been filed seeking pre-arrest bail for the petitioner/Accused No.10. However, there are specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court does not find it appropriate to grant pre- arrest bail to the petitioner. 5 10. In view of these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail, as it would amount to providing a shield or protection to a person against whom specific overt acts attributed. Grant of pre-arrest bail is not a license for the commission of cognizable and non-bailable offences, as per the decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)2.Hence, there are no merits in the petition. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, as per the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned within one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and move an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned. The learned Jurisdictional Court concerned is directed to dispose of the said application in accordance with law, on its own merits by giving due and sufficient opportunity to both including the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, and pass appropriate orders. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 10.10.2025 S D P 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 2(2020) 5 SCC 1 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9915 of 2025 Date:10.10.2025 S D P