APHC010456732026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7620/2026 Between: KOTA CHANDRASEKHAR, S/O KOTA SURYANARAYANA,AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,R/O D.NO.9-332, KOTHA COLONY, NEAR WATER TANK ROAD,RAVULAPALEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, DR.BR. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by Station House Officer,Ravulapalem P.S, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District,Rep. Through the Public Prosecutor, State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: AJAY KUMAR KANAPARTHI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.188 of 2026 of the Ravulapalem Police Station Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, was registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 333, 324(6), 351(2), 74, 79 read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘ the BNS’). 2. Mr.K.Ajay Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.1, submits that the petitioner/Accused No.1 is the innocent of the alleged offence. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. It is further submitted that the police have earlier opened a Rowdy sheet against the petitioner, which was quashed by this Court on 10.08.2022 in W.P.No.24887 of 2022. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 3. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.1, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. There are nearly five adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner/Accused No.1. Hence, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On perusal of the record, the de-facto complainant had alleged that on 10.08.2026 at about 4:00 pm, the petitioner/Accused No.1, along with two individuals, brought a JCB machine and demolished the house of the de-facto complainant under the guise of injunction order. It is stated that the household articles of the de-facto complainant were completely destroyed and that the de-facto complainant was blessed with a two-month-old baby and was terrified during the demolition. There are five adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner, and the same have not been mentioned by the petitioner in his petition 6. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.,1 wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 47 and 48, it was observed that bail applications are often considered on the basis of prima facie material placed before the Court at different stages of the proceedings. The Court held that non-disclosure of material facts, such as criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, custody period, and the stage of trial, may result in an erroneous grant or refusal of bail. It was further held that every bail applicant is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and any coercive processes pending against him, duly supported by an affidavit. Such disclosure is necessary to ensure transparency, uniformity, and integrity in bail adjudication. 7. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, as it would amount to giving a shield, or protection or 12026 SCC Online 188 license to the petitioner against whom specific and serious allegations have been made, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab2 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)3. 8. 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 petitioner/Accused No.1. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. 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: 08.09.2026 ANS 2(1980) 2 SCC 565 (2020) 5 SCC 1 216 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7620 of 2026 Date: 08.09.2026 ANS