APHC010244762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3845/2026 Between: 1. VIJAYAKUMAR ALIAS A VIJAYAKUMAR, A1S/O A.RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,OCCBUSINESS, 2. CHINNA ALIAS A CHENNAKESAVA REDDY, A3S/O A.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,OCCBUSINESS ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 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 Court pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail to them by directing the police to release them on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Impugned Crime No.132 OF 2026 of Rural Police Station, Tirupathi, in the interests of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. R SUDHA RANI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3845 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 petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.132 of 2026 on the file of Rural Police Station, Tirupati, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 61(2)(a), 49, 109(1), 115(2), 351(3) r/w Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”). 2. The prosecution‟s case is that on 01.04.2026, at approximately 01:30 p.m. near Deccan Hotel in Tirupati Rural Mandal, the accused (A-1 Vijay Kumar, A-2 Hanumantha Reddy, and A-3 Chinna), acting under the instigation of Rajeswari, launched a premeditated attack on Sri Nandinayudu Arun Kumar and his friends. Driven by prior enmity regarding a police complaint involving gold ornaments, the accused arrived with the common intention to commit murder; specifically, A-2 attempted to stab the informant with a knife and, after being obstructed by a witness, used a knuckle duster to inflict a bleeding injury on the informant‟s left temporal region. Following a collective physical assault that left the informant unconscious, the accused fled the scene under the belief that he was dead, leading to the informant‟s hospitalization at Ruia 3 Hospital and the subsequent registration of a case involving criminal conspiracy, abetment, and attempt to murder. 3. Heard Ms.R.Sudha Rani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and are no way connected to the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is contended that the de-facto complainant filed this case due to a grudge regarding the petitioners' mediation in a dispute between his sister and her spouse. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the crucial part of the investigation might have been completed by this time. Learned counsel would further submit the complainant has been discharged and the injuries are simple in nature. The Accused No.1 is the father of the Accused No.3. Learned counsel finally prays to allow the petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 that they have actively participated in the commission of the alleged offence. She would further submit that Accused No.1 is involved in another crime vide Crime No.122 of 2026 of Rural Police Station, Tirupati. It is further submitted that the petitioners have already exhibited absconding behaviour and there is a high risk of evasion of trial if 4 anticipatory bail is granted. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the investigation is at a crucial stage and the specific allegations made against the petitioners clearly indicate their involvement in the commission of the offence. She finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material placed on record before this Court, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, it is evident that there is prima facie material indicating the involvement of the petitioners and their presence at the time of the incident. Further, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary to find the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against them. In the light of these factors, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. ___________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 05.05.2026. UPS 5 159 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3845 of 2026 Date: 05.05.2026 UPS