APHC010666102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12741/2025 Between: 1.THOTAVENKATESWARLU, R/O. GUNDLAPADU VILLAGE, VELDURTHY MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRAESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.MALIREDDY GOWTHAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12741/2025 ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the Petitioner/Accused No.5 for granting bail in connection with Crime No.40 of 2025 of Veldurthy Police Station, Palnadu District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 61(2), 103(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence. He is law abiding citizen. He was falsely implicated in this case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was not found in the scene of offence. If he is enlarged on bail with any conditions, he would abide by the conditions. Investigation is completed. Petitioner has got permanent abode. This is the third bail application. The petitioner has been languishing in the judicial custody for the past 230 days and it is urged to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner that there are no changes in the circumstances for considering the third bail application. The investigation is at a progressive stage. Some more material witnesses are to be examined. The petitioner has got adverse antecedents. He played pivotal role in 3 commission of double murder. The petitioner is brother of the prime offender and urged to dismiss the bail petition. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. In view of the rival submissions advanced by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the prosecutorial narrative, the pivotal issue now meriting for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” 7. This Court vide order dated 07.10.2025 in Criminal Petition No.9687 of 2025 dismissed the first bail application and vide order dated 12.11.2025 in Criminal Petition No.10769 of 2025 dismissed the second bail application. Thus, this is the third bail application. The petitioner was arrested on 05.06.2025, he has been in judicial custody for the past 230 days. A preliminary charge sheet was filed against the accused including the present Petitioner/Accused No.5, showing Accused Nos.6 to 8 were absconding. Accused No.8 was surrendered on 01.12.2025. Accused Nos.6 and 7 were surrendered on 11.12.2025. 8. Even though it is contended by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the petitioner had involved in an offence vide Crime No.11 of 2012, as seen from the record, he was acquitted in that case which was based on the allegation that the petitioner had flouted certain regulations under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 while dealing with Public Distribution rice. 4 9. On perusal of the record, the Petitioner is brother of Accused No.1. The Accused Nos.6 and 7 were taken into police custody for custodial interrogation for two days i.e., on 29.12.2025 & 30.12.2025. Accused No.8 was also taken into custody for custodial interrogation for two days i.e., on 10.12.2025 and 11.12.2025. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner/Accused No.5 acted as a key person in commission of murder of two persons. He conducted recce at two places and informed to other accused about the movements of the two deceased persons. The petitioner/Accused No.5, at two places, one is at Sagar tea stall and other one is at Irani tea stall, observed the movements of the deceased persons and informed the same to Accused Nos.1 to 4. The Accused Nos.1 to 4 beat the deceased Nos.1 & 2 with stones after hitting them with their car. On 88th day of the judicial custody of the petitioner, preliminary charge sheet was filed. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the stage of the investigation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the present petitioner on bail, at this juncture. The accusation against the petitioner is well founded based on averments of the preliminary charge sheet. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 21.01.2026 AG 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12741/2025 Date: 21.01.2026 AG