APHC010470192026 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: 7896/2026 Between: 1. BALU PALI REDDY, S/O.LATE BALU PICCHI REDDY,AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,R/O.9-109, 78-13/1, BALU EVER GREEN SCHOOL,LAKSHMI NAGAR COLONY, TIRUPATI TOWN AND DISTRICT. 2. BALU MUNI SEKHAR, S/O. BALU PALI REDDY,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,R/O.9-109, 78-13/1, BALU EVER GREEN SCHOOL,LAKSHMI NAGAR COLONY, TIRUPATI TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, Sullurupeta Police Station,Tirupati District,Rep., by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P, Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), by the 2 petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.171 of 2026 of Sullurpeta Police Station, Gudur, Tirupathi District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections33, 18(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Mr.C.Subodh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioners and some third parties. The police are pressuring the petitioners to settle the said civil dispute relating to a layout in Sullurpeta. The petitioners were falsely implicated in this case. Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of the family. Petitioner No.1 is aged about 64 years and is a retired employee, while Petitioner No.2 is the son of Petitioner No.1. He submits that the petitioners are law-abiding citizens, have a fixed abode and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting pre-arrest bail. Hence, he urges to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposes the petition and submits that the accusations against the petitioners are well founded, as they hired some persons to beat the de facto complainant, thereby causing grievous injuries to him and the investigation is still at a progressive stage. He further submits that the allegations disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners and apprehends that, if granted pre-arrest bail, the petitioners may influence the witnesses or hamper the investigation. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the petition. 3 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab 1 , at paragraph No.31, has observed that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court has to take into consideration the nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events leading to the making of the charges, the reasonable possibility of the applicant’s presence not being secured at the trial, the reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses and the larger interests of the public or the State. The combined effect of these considerations must weigh with the Court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another2, at paragraph 92.3, held that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court has to take into consideration the nature of the offence, the role attributed to the applicant, the likelihood of influencing the course of investigation, tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing from justice. The necessity of imposing appropriate conditions has to be considered having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 6. As seen from the record, the de facto complainant was admitted to the hospital, where his statement was recorded by the Station House Officer, Sullurpeta Police Station. In the statement, the victim/de facto 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 2(2020) 5 SCC 1 4 complainant alleged that, at the behest of the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, some accused had trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and bet him with an iron rod and with casuarinas sticks, causing grievous injuries. Accusations against the petitioners are well founded. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, as it would amount to giving a shield, protection or licence to the petitioners, against whom specific allegations are levelled. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 16.09.2026 BMS