APHC010667862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12789/2025 Between: Sugoor @ Suguri Mahesh ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SIVA NAGARJUNA SIDHADAPU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.62 of 2025 in Gurazala Town Police Station, Palnadu District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 308(2), read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 2 3. Sri Siva Nagarjuna Sidhadapu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is an innocent has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. He is a law abiding citizen. Petitioner is the sole bread winner of his family. Petitioner is blessed with four children and he would abide by any condition to be imposed by this Court if he is enlarged on bail and urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and sensitive stage, and that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is indispensable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail at this juncture would seriously impede the investigative process, as there exists a grave apprehension that the Petitioner may not extend requisite cooperation and may attempt to evade the due process of law. 5. The prosecution further contends that the Petitioner, if granted the relief sought, may exert undue influence upon material witnesses or tamper with incriminating evidence, thereby vitiating the integrity of the investigation and obstructing the course of justice. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential prejudice to a fair and impartial inquiry, it is prayed that the instant application be dismissed in the interest of justice and to safeguard the sanctity of the investigative process. 6. It is pertinent to mention that earlier this Court disposed of Crl.P.No.9640 of 2025 vide order dated 08.10.2025, filed by the Petitioner as 3 he had not approached the learned Sessions Judge at the first instance and he directly approached this Court, by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal C v. State of Kerala1 and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar2. 7. Subsequently, the Petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge vide Crl.M.P.No.380 of 2025 in Cr.No.62 of 2025. However, the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gurazala vide order dated 24.10.2025 dismissed the bail application. 8. This Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 in Crl.P.No.10392 of 2025 granted regular bail to Accused No.2 as he was in the judicial custody for the past sixty days and in respect of him material portion of the investigation was completed. This Court vide order dated 17.11.2025 in Crl.P.No.11582 of 2025 dismissed the petition on the ground that there are direct and specific overt acts against the Petitioner. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu3 at para No.6 held as under: “6…As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (Respondent 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.” 10. Upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by both the Counsel and the material placed 1SLP (Crl.) Nos.6588 of 2025 2Crl. Appeal @ SPL (Crl) No.17805 of 2024 3 (2021) 16 SCC 725 4 on record, the allegations disclose direct and specific overt acts attributed to Accused No.1, which prima facie establish his active alleged involvement in the commission of the offence. The de facto complainant is the father of the paramour of Accused No.1. The victim is the wife of brother of Accused No.1’s brother. The peculiar relationship between the parties, the de‑facto complainant being the father of the Petitioner’s paramour and the victim being the wife of the Petitioner’s brother, further accentuates the gravity of the accusation and the potential for disruption of familial and social harmony. The contention that Accused No.2 has been enlarged on bail cannot ensure to the benefit of the Petitioner, as the circumstances of Accused No.2 are distinguishable, he having been in judicial custody for sixty days with substantial investigation completed against him. In contradistinction, the investigation qua the Petitioner is at a crucial stage, and enlargement on anticipatory bail would seriously impede the process of investigation. The plea of false implication and personal hardship, though urged, cannot outweigh the seriousness of the allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and severity of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner as it would amount giving a premium or license to those persons against whom specific overt acts are attributed, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab4 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of 4 (1980) 2 SCC 565 5 Delhi) 5. In view of these considerations, this Court finds no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Hence, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 20.01.2026 KMS 5 (2020) 5 SCC 1 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.12789 of 2025 Date: 20.01.2026 KMS