APHC010466442026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7796/2026 Between: GOVINDAPURAM VIJAY KUMAR ALIAS VIJAY, S/O. SIVA PRASAD SIVAJI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,R/O. NEAR LUTHERN CHURCH,OLD MANGALAGIRI, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by the SHO,Mangalagiri town P.S, Guntur DistrictRep. Through the Public Prosecutor,State of Andhra Pradesh,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: KALAKOTI SUNIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7796 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking grant of bail in Cr.No.158 of 2026 of Mangalagiri Town Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 61(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’). 2. Mr. Kalakoti Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed any offence. He is a law-abiding citizen and the sole earning member of his family. There are no other criminal cases pending against the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was arrested based on the confession of the other accused and that no substantial material is available against him. The petitioner was arrested on 04.07.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 74 days. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while enlarging him on bail. Hence, the learned counsel prays that the Criminal Petition may be allowed. 4. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposes the petition and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7796 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026 serious in nature. It is submitted that the investigation is still in progress and the material witnesses are yet to be examined. There is also a possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence if he is released on bail. 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioner/Accused No.2 took the car from Accused No.3, who had hired the vehicle, and handed it over to Accused No.1 for committing the murder of the deceased, who also caused severe injuries to the other witnesses. It is further submitted that substantial material is available against the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 7. Thoughtful consideration has been bestowed on the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. The entire material available on record has been carefully perused. 8. Now, the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail?” 9. As seen from the record, the petitioner was arrested on 04.07.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 74 days. It is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner/Accused No.2 arranged the car for Accused No.1 after taking the same from Accused No.3, who had hired the vehicle. Initially, after the occurrence, the police registered a case for the offence 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7796 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026 punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’)/Section 125(b) of ‘the BNS’, alleging that it was a road accident causing grievous hurt. Subsequently, in the course of investigation, the section of law was altered to Section 307 of ‘the IPC’/Section 109 of ‘the BNS’. After the death of one of the injured persons, the section of law was further altered to Section 302 of ‘the IPC’/Section 103 of ‘the BNS’. 10. The investigation further reveals that the petitioner and the other accused allegedly portrayed the occurrence as a road accident. There is CCTV footage which allegedly depicts that the petitioner and the other accused waited for about one hour before causing the alleged death and grievous injuries. The investigation, as mentioned supra, is still at a nascent stage. Some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations and the stage of investigation, the request for enlarging the petitioner on bail is not found to be convincing or reasonable. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 16.09.2026 RSI/DRNR 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7796 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026 51 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7796 of 2026 Date: 16.09.2026 RSI