APHC010033632026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 506/2026 Between: 1. B.CHENGAIAH, S/O.CHINNA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O.CHENGAREDDYPALLI H/WADA, KARKAMBADI POST, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer Renigunta Police Station, Timpathi District Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 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 direct the Respondent to release the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No.99/2025 on the file of the Renigunta Police Station, Tirupathi District in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 506 OF 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.3 for granting pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.99 of 2025 of Renigunta Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 115(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard Mr.P.Nagendra Reddy, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent - State. 3. The brief case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner along with other accused picked up a quarrel with de facto complainant. The allegation against the petitioner herein is that he beat the de facto complainant with stick on her head and caused four injuries, which are grievous in nature as per the wound certificate. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this is the second bail application. He further submits that investigation has been completed. 5. Mr. K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that investigation is still pending. 6. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that there are no changed circumstances 3 since the dismissal of the earlier bail application by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2025, wherein specific overt acts were attributed to the petitioner. In the absence of any new or changed circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within one (1) week and file an application for regular bail. The learned Jurisdictional Court concerned is directed to dispose of the said application in accordance with law, on its own merits by giving due and sufficient opportunity to the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. ___________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 03.02.2026 KA 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 506/2026 Date: 03.02.2026 KA