APHC010666392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12755/2025 Between: GUMMA VENU BABU, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 26 YEARS,HINDU, PROBATIONAIY OFFICER, THE MUTHOOT GROUP,R/O DOOR NO.8-100/C, YADAVUIAPALEM,VENIGANDIA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.9 AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High CourtAt Amaravathi, Nelapadu, through SHO Old Guntur P.S.,Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: KISHORE VANGARA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12755 of 2025 Dated 29.12.2025 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.9 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.300 of 2025 of Old Guntur Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 109(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Mr. Kishore Vangara, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner/Accused No.9 is innocent. He has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has a fixed abode. He would abide by any condition that this Court deems fit to impose while enlarging him on pre- arrest bail. Except the confession of Accused No.1, there is no material available with the prosecution to implicate the petitioner. The petitioner is a Manager of Muthoot Financial Corporation. Hence, it is urged to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail. 3. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner informed about the movements of 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12755 of 2025 Dated 29.12.2025 Naga Ganesh, who is the son of the de-facto complainant. Later, Accused No.1 stabbed the son of the de-facto complainant to death. There are CDR calls between Accused Nos.9 and 6 and Accused No.1. The investigation is at a crucial stage. The accusation against the petitioner is well founded, and it is urged to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. As seen from the record, the petitioner is shown as Accused No.9. Accused Nos.1 to 4 are still in judicial custody. As per the version of the prosecution, there are CDR calls between Accused Nos.1, 6 and 9. The role of Accused No.9 came to light based on the confessions of Accused Nos.6 and 9. Accused No.1 is the brother-in-law of the deceased/Naga Ganesh. He allegedly stabbed the deceased/Naga Ganesh, after ascertaining the movements of the deceased from Accused No.9. Accused No.1 is a relative of Accused No.6. Accused No.6 is known to Accused No.9. There is no relationship between Accused Nos.1 and 9. The deceased/Naga Ganesh, married the sister of Accused No.9 against the wishes of Accused No.1 and the family elders. Accused No.6 gave the phone number of Accused No.9 to Accused No.1. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner/Accused No.9 is required to ascertain whether he played an active role by sharing a common intention with 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12755 of 2025 Dated 29.12.2025 Accused No.1 or by entertaining a common object with the other accused, or whether he also participated in the conspiracy with the main accused. Therefore, the request for grant of pre-arrest bail is not found to be convincing or reasonable. 6. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner/Accused No.9, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, as it would amount to giving a shield, or protection or license to the petitioner who had allegedly caused severe injuries to the victim, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)2. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused No.9, there are no merits to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.9. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. 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 the copy of 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 2(2020) 5 SCC 1 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12755 of 2025 Dated 29.12.2025 this order, and move an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned. The learned Jurisdictional Court concerned shall endeavour to dispose of the said application in accordance with law, on its own merits, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, and shall pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) weeks. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 29.12.2025 RSI/PRA 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12755 of 2025 Dated 29.12.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.12755 of 2025 Date: 29.12.2025 RSI/PRA