APHC010428912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8612/2025 Between: 1.ROWTHULA BALARANGA, S/O.R.RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC CINEMA ART DIRECTOR, R/O.H,NO. 10-1-407, SRIRAM NAGAR COLONY, ROAD NO.2, KARMANGHAT, HYDERABAD. 2.ROWTHULA KRISHNA ALIAS RAVUTULLA KRISHNA, S/O.TATARAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC PVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O.9-149, CHINNAGOLLAPALEM, KRUTHIVENNU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.ELURI ALIAS YALLURI RAMESH, S/O.KANTA RAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.CHINNAGOLLAPALEM (V), KRUTHIVENNU (M), KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. Public Prosecutor, P.S Kruthivennu ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.K BALAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 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 Nos.1 to 3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with in Crime No.117 of 2025 of Kruthivennu Police Station, Krishna District registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 127(2), 118(1), 115(2), 351(2) read with Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.05.2025 at about 12.30 hours, the complainant Karimsetti Venkata Krishnarao, while seated outside the Saibaba temple after darshan, was accosted by accused persons Routhula Balaranga, Routula Krishna, and Eluri Ramesh. It is alleged that upon a demand for arrears of interest on a loan transaction, the accused forcibly abducted the complainant in a motor vehicle, conveyed him to Sababul garden adjacent to his residence, and there subjected him to unlawful restraint by tying him to a coconut tree. It is further submitted that the complainant was assaulted with an iron rod upon his right leg, causing bleeding injuries, accompanied by threats to his life. The incident was interrupted by the arrival of his relative Karimsetty Shesarao, upon which the accused fled the scene. The injured was thereafter administered first aid by an RMP doctor and subsequently shifted to Bhimavaram Area Hospital for advanced treatment. 3. Sri K.Balakrishna, learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 submits that the prosecution case is riddled with inconsistencies, 3 improbabilities, and material contradictions which strike at the very root of the allegations. It is urged that the FIR itself suffers from an unexplained delay of nearly three days, despite the alleged occurrence being in a public place on a Thursday when the Sai Baba Temple was thronged with devotees on account of Annadanam. The absence of any independent witnesses, coupled with the fact that all cited witnesses are close relatives of the informant, renders the prosecution version highly suspect. The alleged act of abducting a 54-year-old man in broad daylight, tying him to a coconut tree, and assaulting him with an iron rod in a busy locality, without any contemporaneous complaint or intervention from the public, is inherently improbable and indicative of a concocted narrative. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would further contend that the medical evidence is tainted and unreliable. The wound certificate bears the date of 11.05.2025, which predates the alleged incident of 29.05.2025, thereby raising grave doubts about its authenticity. The X-Ray reports are inconsistent, with one report dated 31.05.2025 showing simple injuries, while another report dated 05.06.2025, obtained from a private hospital without proper reference, suddenly categorizes the injury as grievous. Such manipulation of medical records, bypassing nearby government hospitals, and reliance on private facilities without proper documentation, clearly demonstrate fabrication and afterthought. The alteration of charges from Section 118(1) to 118(2) of ‘the BNS’ and inclusion of Section 142 of ‘the BNS’ 4 is also a product of influence and bias, rather than a fair and impartial investigation. 5. It is thus submitted that the entire prosecution case is a result of political influence, given the admitted relationship of the informant with a sitting MLA of Bheemavaram. The Petitioners, who are respectable individuals with no criminal antecedents, are being persecuted for the simple act of demanding repayment of a lawful debt. The investigation is partisan, the witnesses are tainted, and the medical evidence is fabricated. In such circumstances, custodial interrogation is wholly unwarranted, and the Petitioners are entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail, lest irreparable prejudice be caused to their liberty and reputation. The allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose grave offences warranting custodial detention, and the Petitioners have already undertaken to cooperate with the investigation it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3. 6. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that they may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 7. The prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioners may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential 5 risk to the progress of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 9. The allegations against the Petitioners are grave and disclose a prima facie case of abduction, unlawful restraint, and assault with dangerous weapons, attracting serious penal consequences under ‘the BNS’. The contention of delay in lodging the FIR, absence of independent witnesses, and alleged inconsistencies in medical evidence are matters to be tested during trial and cannot be grounds to stifle investigation at its incipient stage. The material placed on record demonstrates that the complainant sustained injuries and was subjected to threats to life, thereby necessitating custodial interrogation to unearth the full extent of the conspiracy and recover incriminating material. The apprehension of witness intimidation and evidence tampering is neither illusory nor unfounded, particularly in view of the admitted political affiliations surrounding the dispute. In such circumstances, the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, being an extraordinary protection, cannot be invoked to shield the Petitioners from the rigors of investigation. There are several specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners. Therefore, there are no merits in the case to consider the request of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 for grant of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 6 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned within a period of one week from the date of this order and move an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned for enlarging them on bail. The learned Jurisdictional Court concerned shall consider such application on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, after affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. The said application shall be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within a period of one week from the date of its filing. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 06.03.2026 VTS