1 APHC010554192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10758/2025 Between: Sandrapalli Mastan Alias Masthanaiah ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/AccusedNo.1on bail in Crime No.16 of 2025 of Kandaleru Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1herein for the offences punishable under Sections 103(2), 140(1), 61(2), 238 and 49 ofthe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’). 2 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee1, at paragraph No.9 held as under: “…It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” 4. In a decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the de-facto complainant in State of Kerala v. Mahesh2, the Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the order of granting bail to the Accused by the High Court, who was involved in heinous and shocking murder of a lady doctor, aged about 30 years. 5. This is the second bail application. Earlier, this Court dismissed the first bail application of Accused No.1 on 19.09.2025 in Crl.P. No. 9139 of 2025. There is no change in circumstances. The accusation against the petitioner/Accused No.1 is well-founded.This Court granted bail to Accused No.3 on the ground that there were only omnibus allegations leveled against him and no specific overt acts were attributed to him. Accused No.3 was further released on the ground that it was merely alleged that he accompanied Accused Nos.4 to 7.There is CCTV footage in which the movements of 1(2010) 14 SCC 496 2(2021) 14 SCC 86 3 Accused Nos.1 to 3 were observed. The petitioner/Accused No.1 allegedly hired the said accused persons to kill the father of L.W.1 so that the obstacle to his marriage with his lover would be removed. The petitioner/Accused No.1 informed Accused No.2 about his love affair with L.W.7 and that the deceased was arranging a marriage between her and L.W.23. He requested Accused No.2 to help him kill Shaik Shafi and promised to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as supari if Shaik Shafi was murdered. The petitioner/Accused No.1 also sent an amount of Rs.5,000/- through the PhonePe account of his father to Accused No.2 for expenses. 6. The motive behind the alleged murder is that the daughter of deceased fell in love with petitioner/accused No.1. The petitioner/accused No.1was arrested on 23.05.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 170 days. The accusation against the petitioner/accused No.1 is well founded. Preliminary charge sheet was filed on 19.08.2025 within 90 days of statutory period, and the case is presently at the P.R.C. stage. The final charge sheet has not yet been filed, as the report from the F.S.L. is awaited.In view of the fact that the accusation is well founded against the petitioner/accused No.1. There is a prima facie material and reasonable ground to believe that Accused had committed the alleged offence. The allegations are severer in nature. Punishment in the event of conviction to the Petitioner is either life imprisonment or death penalty. There is a danger of justice being thwarted if bail is granted to the Petitioner. At this juncture, request of the 4 petitioner/accused No.1 for enlarging him on bail is not convincing and reasonable. 7. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations, as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail at this stage. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 13.11.2025 S D P 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10758OF 2025 13.11.2025 S D P