IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMA THURSDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10104 OF 2025 Between: 1. Bothu Venkatesh, S/o.Chinna Ramaiah, Aged about 59 years, occupation cultivation, Resident of Chengareddypalli, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. 2. Bothu Subramanyam, S/o. Venkatesh, Aged about 30 years, occupation: student (MDS), Narayana Dental College, Nellore, Resident of 27/1/329 (2nd floor) Vasavi Nagar 2, Childrens Park More Supermarket Line,Nellore 524001. 3. B Nagabhushanamma, W/o.Venkatesh, Aged about 59 years, occ.Home maker. Resident of 27/1/329 (2nd floor) VasaviNagar 2, childrens park More Supermarket Line Nellore 524001 (Accused No.4). ...petitioner/Accused No.1, 2 and 4 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High court of Andhra Pradesh, through the Renigunta Urban Police Station Chittoor District ..I Respondent/Complainant petition under section 482 of B.N.S.S, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/Accused no.1, 2 & 4 in the event of their arrest in crime No. 99 of 2025 dt. 10.04.2025 on the file of the renigunta urban Police Station, Tirupathi District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon Perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof upon hearing the arguments of Ms.Thoka Deva Deepak Anirudh Yaclav Advocate for the Petitioner(s), PUBLIC pROSECUTOFa for the Respondent, the Court made the following 2 The Court made the following order: The Criminal Petitl'on has been fI-led under Sect]-on 482 of the Bhara{iya Nagarik suraksha sanhI|ta, 2023 (for brevity fthe BNSS') by the petitioners/Accused Nos.112 and 4 for grantl'ng of pre-arrest ba" in connection wl-th crime No.99 of 2025 of Renjgunta urban poll'ce Station, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under sect]'ons .109(1), 115(2), 118(1 ), 351 (2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya SanhI'ta, 2023 (for brevity tthe BNSJ). Q4SEQE±!±E±BQSEQ± 2. The case of the prosecution js that on 21.03.2025 at about 5.00 p.m, while the defacto comp[ajnant was in her fields collecting a paddy crop, the Accused Nos. 1 to 5 allegedly arrived, questioned her for cultI'Vating the joint land without partition and abused her in filthy language. when she replied that she had cultivated only her share and advised them to cultivate the remajnjng vacant land, the Accused allegedly became enraged and `Accused No.1 threatened to kj" her,. Accused No.2 struck her on the left side of the head and again on the right eye,- Accused No.3 struck her on the left ear, and Accused Nos. 4 and 5 beat her with thel'r hands and legs, causing bleeding injuries to her head, forehead and ear and rendering her unconscious. Hence, the above Case Was registered. NTIONS OF THE OUNSE L FOR 3. SrI| T. Deva Deepak Anirudh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitI'OnerS have been falsely implicated in the I'nStant -I_ ---, -- '- - proceed.lngs and asserts that no offence, as alleged in the complaint, has been committed by them. lt is contended that the pet'ltioners are the sole breadwinners of the.lr family, and any coercive action, includ'lng arrest, would result in grave and irreparable hardship to the-lr dependent family members. lt is further submitted that the petitioners are law-abiding citizen 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 antic'lpatory bail. The petitioners undertake {o cooperate fully with the ongO-lng investigation and assures the court of their continued presence as and when required. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also Submits that there iS nO recovery attributable to the petitioners and that custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioner; 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 th`at this court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused No.3 and 4 in the interest ofjuSt'lCe and equity. OFTHE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTO ARGUMENTS 5. Per contra, Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, asserting that the ' 'lnvestigation is at a nascent and sens-lt'lve stage, and that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is indispensable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. lt is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioners Qn pre-arrest bail at thI'S juncture would seriously impede the investigative process, as there exists a grave apprehensI'On that the Petitioners may not extend requjsjte cooperatI'On and may attempt to evade the due process of law. 6. The prosecution further contends that the petitioners, jf granted the relief sought, may exert undue l'nf[uence upon material witnesses or tamper with jncrjmjnating evlldence, thereby vitiating the jntegrI'ty 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, jt is prayed that the instant application be dI-SmiSSed jn the I'ntereSt Of juStiCe and {o safeguard the sanctity of the investigative process. 7. Thoughtful cons['deration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONS 8. ln the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned counsel for both the sf-des, now the point for consideration is.. LCWhether the petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-ariest bail?ll 9. The Pet[-{ioners/ Accused Mos,1, 2 and 4 are relatives of the defacto complajnant. It appears that there is a civil dispute wI-th regard 1:o the land pending between the pe{itjoners and the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant is aged about 69 years. The allegation against the Accused, on perusal of the record is that the petitioners beat the defacto complainant with -t,Efr3SSf- 5 sticks. The alleged incident OCCurred On 21.03.2025. The informal-Ion about the comm-lssion of`alleged offence was lodged on 10.04.2025, nearly 20 days from the date of occurrence of the incident. After that, the defaCtO COmPla-lnant mentions in her report that she was in the hospital undergoing the treatment. Hence he could not give report tO the Police in due time. 10. Learned COunSel for the Petitioners Submits that the Petitioner No.2/ Accused No.2 is studying MDS in Narayana Dental College College, Nellore. He filed his B'IOmetriC Report, wherein it 'lS mentioned that On the date Of alleged offence, he was -ln the college. Be that aS 'lt may, the Petitioners and the defacto complainant are relatives. There is delay Of 20 days in lodging the report and there is a dispute with regard to the land in between the defacto complainant and the petitioners. The Pet-ltioner No.1 is aged about 59 years and petit|loner No.3 is aged about 59 years respectively. ll. Considering the facts and Circumstances, the gravity and nature Of the allegations levelled the Petitioners, this Court is 'lnClined tO grant Pre-arrest ba" to the petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 12. ln the result, the Crim'lnal Petition iS allowed With the following conditions: i. lnthe eventofarrestofthe petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4, they shall be enlarged on bail subject to the-lr executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand c-- only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction 'of the arresting police officials; ill. The PetI'tiOnerS/ Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 sh'all make themselves available for investigation as and when required; iI.i. ]V. V. Vl. The Petitioners/ Accused Mos.1, 2 and 4 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecutI'On Witnesses; The Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m.., till filing of the charge sheet. The Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. The Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 shall surrender their passports,'if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passports, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. sD/-B.PRASAD RAO //TRUE COPY// TRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The StatI'On House offl'cer, Renigunta urban poll-Qe Statlon, Chjttoor District. 2. One CC `to Ms. Thoka Deva Deepak Anl-rudh yadav Advocate [opuc] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, Hl|gh court ofAndhra praclesh (OUT) 4. One spare copy HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED : 10/10/2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL CRLP.No.10104 of 2025 ALLOWED 10 8C1