APHC010017262026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL Between: 1. DNARENDRA KUMAR, S/O.D.RAMA RAO, AGED 45 YEARSOCCGOLD WORKS R/O.D.NO.5 MANGALAGIRIGUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANGALAGIRI RURAL POLICE STATIONMANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. DAMARLA PADMAJA, W/O. LATE RAGHAVENDRA RAO, AGE. 42 YEARS, R/O. DNR APARTMENT, ATMAKURRU VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 16.01.2026 IN CRL.P.NO.269 OF 2026. Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumsta Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to release the Pstitioner/A in the event of his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 507 OF 2025 dated 18 11-2025 on the file the Station House Officer, Man Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, AP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 269/2026 DNARENDRA KUMAR, S/O.D.RAMA RAO, AGED 45 YEARSOCCGOLD WORKS R/O.D.NO.5-458/6,BALAJINAGAR, MANGALAGIRIGUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, STATION HOUSE OFFICER RURAL POLICE STATIONMANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. DAMARLA PADMAJA, W/O. LATE RAGHAVENDRA RAO, AGE. 42 YEARS, R/O. DNR APARTMENT, ATMAKURRU VILLAGE, AGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 16.01.2026 IN CRL.P.NO.269 OF 2026. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to release the Pstitioner/A in the event of his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 507 OF 2025 dated 18 2025 on the file the Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, AP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3396] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA DNARENDRA KUMAR, S/O.D.RAMA RAO, AGED 45 458/6,BALAJINAGAR, MANGALAGIRIGUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RURAL POLICE STATIONMANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. DAMARLA PADMAJA, W/O. LATE RAGHAVENDRA RAO, AGE. 42 YEARS, R/O. DNR APARTMENT, ATMAKURRU VILLAGE, AGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS nces stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to release the Pstitioner/A-2 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 507 OF 2025 dated 18- galagiri Rural Police 2 1. YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. V SAI KUMAR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 269/2026 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.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.507 of 2025 of Mangalagiri Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 115(2) and 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Yaswanth Gade, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present case relates to the commission of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which occurred on 17.11.2025 at about 15:45 hours at DNR Apartments, Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri. The crime was reported on 18.11.2025 by the defacto complainant, who stated that her husband (the deceased) was suffering from heart disease and was undergoing medical treatment. For the said treatment, the complainant and the deceased had borrowed money from one Parimala Durga, in whose name Flat No.101 was registered as security. Subsequently, the said Parimala Durga sold the flat to a third party, and arrangements were being made for installation of an electricity meter. In connection with the same, 4 the accused, who is a neighbour of the complainant, came to the house of the deceased and stated that he would remove the existing electricity meter and install it in Flat No.101. The deceased objected to the accused coming to their house and asked him not to interfere. Enraged by this, the accused, fully aware of the deceased’s fragile health condition, choked the deceased. When the complainant and her son attempted to intervene, the accused pushed them aside. Due to the assault, the deceased experienced severe breathing difficulty. The complainant then took the deceased into their house. After some time, while the deceased was sitting, he suddenly collapsed. At that point, a neighbour came and attempted to administer CPR. The deceased was then shifted to the hospital, where he was declared dead. Based on the report, the present crime has been registered. 4. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Petitioner was not present at the scene of offence at the relevant time. It is further submitted that there is no whisper about the Petitioner in the complaint given by the wife of the deceased, who claimed to be the eye witness to the occurrence. It is submitted that the Petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Learned counsel prays to release the Petitioner on anticipatory bail. 5. Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that, so far, ten witnesses are examined and the case is pending for RFSL report and arrest of the Petitioner. 5 6. Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that, basing on the confession of Accused No.1, the role of the Petitioner is established and prays for dismissal of the petition. He would further submit that the Petitioner herein is the main person and the reason for the present incident and finally prays for dismissal of the present petition. 7. Considering the submissions made, upon perusal of the material on record, and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case that the absence of any specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners/Accused No.2, and the fact that the investigation might have been completed, the question of tampering with the investigation or influencing the witnesses does not arise. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.2. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of arrest of the Petitioner/ Accused No.2, shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court; ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, twice in a week i.e., on every Wednesday and Saturday, between 10:00 AM and 05:00 PM, till filing of charge sheet. 6 iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall make himself available for investigation and shall cooperate with the investigating officer for further investigation; iv. The Petitioner/ Accused No.2 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; v. The Petitioner/ Accused No.2 shall not leave the limits of Andhra Pradesh State without the express permission from the concerned Court. vi. The Petitioner/ Accused No.2 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he do not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Court concerned. __________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 22.01.2026 UPS 7 122 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 269/2026 22.01.2026 UPS