APHC010055572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1168/2025 Between: 1. SIRISALA HARI @ BINDELA SRIHARI, S/O SIRISALA SREENIVASULU @ BINDELA SEENIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 19/664/A6, BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BUKKARAYA SAMUDRAM POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. P NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.4, in connection with Crime No.185 of 2024 on the file of Bukkaraya Samudram Police Station, Ananthapuram District, which was registered for the offence under Section 140(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2 2. Heard Sri P.Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, except the confession of Accused Nos.1 and 2, no allegations are there against the Petitioner/Accused No.4. Learned counsel would further submit that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were already enlarged on bail. It is submitted that the Petitioner is a B.Pharmacy graduate. Learned counsel would submit that the father of the Petitioner was detained by the Police illegally and on the application filed by the Petitioner for search warrant, the leaned Magistrate ordered for searching of the Police Station by an order dated 28.08.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.110 of 2024 and accordingly, his father was traced in the Police Station and was produced before the concerned Magistrate and subsequently, his father was released. In view of the same, the Police having borne grudge against the Petitioner, has falsely implicated him in the present crime. Learned counsel would prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that material part of the investigation is yet to be completed and some more witnesses are to be examined. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. As could be seen from the complaint, this is a case of kidnap for ransom. Though it is contended by the Petitioner that he was falsely 3 implicated by the Police, the same is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail to him, since it is alleged against the Petitioner that he along with his father instigated the other Accused for the alleged kidnap of the De facto Complainant. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the investigation is at a crucial stage. 6. Considering the submissions, in the light of the allegations made against the Petitioner, and also the stage of investigation, this Court is of the view that, in the event of granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioner, there is every possibility of threatening the material witnesses. There are no tenable grounds to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner, at this stage. Hence, the petition deserves dismissal. 7. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date:25.02.2025 Dinesh 4 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1168 of 2025 DATE:25.02.2025 Dinesh