APHC010102302026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1568/2026 Between: 1. THATHINENI VAMSI, S/O. THATHINENI LAKSHUMAIAH,AGED 26 YRS, R/O. D.NO. 5-1-495,MADAKALAVARIPALLE, BADVEL,YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. ...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 Court may be pleased to direct the Station House Officer, Chinna Chowk Police Station, YSR Kadapa District to release the Petitioners/Accused on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Cr. No. 394 of 2025 of Chinna Chowk Police Station, YSR Kadapa and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. D PURNACHANDRA 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: 1568 OF 2026 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) by the Petitioners/Accused in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.394 of 2025 of Chinna Chowk Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, for the offences punishable under Sections 326(g) of B.N.S. Act. 2. Heard Mr.D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent. Perused the record. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.12.2025 at about 10:05 PM, at Max Landmark Group Shopping Mall, opposite RTC Bus Stand, Kadapa, the accused Tatineni Vamsi, an Ex-Team Leader terminated on the same day for alleged cash counter fraud and misconduct, came to the store despite instructions not to attend duty. While the complainant was closing the store, the accused allegedly lifted the partially closed shutter, poured petrol from a plastic bottle at the entrance and set it on fire with a matchstick, damaging the entrance sensor tower, which was extinguished by the complainant and staff, though about eight workers were present inside. It is further alleged that the accused turned the CCTV cameras away to avoid recording, threatened the complainant, and caused an estimated loss of Rs.3,00,000/-. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner earlier worked in the readymade shop of the complainant just preceding to the present incident and he was removed from employment. It is alleged against the petitioner that he went to the shop with a petrol bottle and tried to set fire at the entrance of the shop, which was prevented by the inmates of the shop. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no damage was caused either to the property or to any person due to the alleged act attributed against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation might have been completed and that the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submits that the investigation is not yet completed in this matter. The nature of the offence appears to be dangerous and, if the alleged act of the petitioner had not been prevented, it would have caused loss of lives and damage to property. Therefore, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material on record, the way in which the alleged incident took place and the alleged behaviour of the petitioner in attacking the readymade shop with a petrol bottle and attempting to set it on fire, and since the shop may contain stock made of polyester material, it would definitely cause huge loss to the property or even to the lives of the people. 4 7. In that view of the matter, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 05.03.2026. Pmk 5 186 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1568/2026 05.03.2026 Pmk