APHC010715472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13598/2025 Between: 1.GUDAMCHERUVU PEDDA CHOWDAIAH, AS PER AADHAR CARD,PEDDA CHOWDAPPA AS PER F.I.R., S/O. PEDDA CHOWDAPPA,AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.3- 72,POORVA BOMMEPALLE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 2.GUDEMCHERUVU SOMASEKHAR, AS PER AADHAR CARD,SOMASEKHAR AS PER F.I.R. S/O. NADIPI CHOWDAPPA,AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.3- 11,POORVA BOMMEPALLE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 3.GUDEMCHERUVU MADHU, AS PER AADHAR CARDMADHU AS PER F.I.R, S/O. PEDDA CHOUDAPPA,AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 1/104,POORVA BOMMEPALLE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4.GAAJULA SUHASINI, AS PER AADHAR CARDSUHASINI AS PER F.I.R WO GAAJULA CHOUDAIAH,AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, HINDU, RESIDING AT D.NO.1/89,POORVA BOMMEPALLE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 5.GUDEMCHERUVU NAGENDRAMMA, AS PER AADHAR CARDNAGENDRAMMA AS PER F.I.R. WO. GUDEMCHERUVUMADHU, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.1- 104,P.BOMMEPALLE, JAMMALAMADUGU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 6.GUDEMCHERUVU CHOWDAMMA, AS PER AADHAR CARDCHOWDAMMA AS PER F.I.R., W/O. G. PEDDA CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, POORVA BOMMEPALLE,JAMMALAMADUGU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT 2 7.KAMMALUDINNE SUBBARAYUDU, AS PER AADHAR CARD,KAMBALADINNE GUNDANNA AS PER F.I.R.,S/O. K.SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,RESIDING AT D.NO. 1/6B, MAIAMEEDI KAMBAIA DINNE VILIAGE,MYIAVARAM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 8.MUTHARASU SUBBALAKSHUMMA, AS PER AADHAR CARD,W/O.MUTHARASU SUBBARAYUDU, W/O. GUNDANNA AS PER F.I.R.AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.1/6B,MAIAMEEDI KAMBAIA DINNE, MYIAVARAM MANDAL,Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor,Through JammaiamaduguU/G Police Station,YSR Kadapa District.High Court of A.P. Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.T DIWAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 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, 3, 5, 8 to 12 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.320 of 2025 of Jammalamadugu (U/G) Police Station, Y.S.R.Kadapa District, registered for the alleged offence punishable 3 under Section 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1) read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Sri T.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant proceedings and asserts that no offence, as alleged in the complaint, have been committed by them. It is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families, and any coercive action, including arrest, would result in grave and irreparable hardship to their dependent family members. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are law-abiding citizen with a permanent place of residence and is willing to comply with any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioners undertakes to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assures the Court of their continued presence as and when required. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioners have already extended full cooperation to the Investigating Officer and there exists no reasonable apprehension of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence and it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3, 5, 8 to 12. 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 4 interrogation of the Petitioners are indispensable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioners on pre-arrest bail at this juncture would seriously impede the investigative process, as there exists a grave apprehension that the Petitioners may not extend requisite cooperation and may attempt to evade the due process of law. 5. The prosecution further contends that the Petitioners, 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. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 7. The allegation against the Petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.1, 3, 5, and 8 to 12 in Crime No.320 of 2025 on the file of Jammalamadugu U/G Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District is that on 10.05.2025 at about 3:30 PM in P.Bommepalli Village, Jammalamadugu Mandal, they along with others attacked the de-facto complainant Boggu Mallikarjuna and five others with sticks, hands, and legs over a dispute regarding the pouring of dung water in front of their houses, causing injuries, five persons sustaining simple injuries and two persons grievous injuries, supported by wound certificates and statements from L.W.Nos.7 & 8 as 5 eyewitnesses, with specific overt acts attributed such as Pedda Chowdappa striking the complainant on the right-side head, Raja Chowdappa and others attacking intervenors like Naganji, Munesh, Nagendra, Nadipi Subbarayudu, Ramadevi, and Gurulakshmi with sticks causing bleeding and swelling injuries. Notably, this is a counter-case to Cr.No.319/2025 registered by the petitioners' family against the de-facto complainant under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 103 r/w 190 of ‘the BNS’ stemming from prior animosities including the death of Accused No.2 linked to the complainant's side. 8. In the present crime, the allegations are supported by medical evidence and wound certificates, and the presence of injured witnesses lends weight to the prosecution version. There are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners, and the injuries sustained by multiple persons cannot be brushed aside at the stage of investigation. The existence of eyewitnesses and the gravity of the offences alleged were considered sufficient to decline the relief of anticipatory bail. 9. It is well settled in law, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab 1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, that the grant of anticipatory bail does not amount to a charter for commission of serious offences, nor does it serve as a cloak of immunity for individuals against whom specific and prima facie cognizable allegations have been levelled. The relief under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’ is intended to safeguard personal liberty, but not to thwart the legitimate course of 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 6 investigation or to protect those who are prima facie complicit in grave offences involving overt acts. 10. A counter case in complaint was lodged by one of the Accused in Cr.No.320 of 2025, and the said complaint was registered as a case in Cr.No.319/2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 103 r/w 190 of ‘the BNS’. There was dispute with regard to throwing of cow dung water in the disputed premises. In that dispute Accused No.2 in the instant case died. Be that as it may, there are eyewitnesses, LWs.7 & 8, who spoke specifically about the Petitioners overt acts. Other Accused in the instant crime of F.I.R.No.320/2025 were enlarged on regular bail not on anticipatory bail. As mentioned supra, there were five injured, out of them two suffered grievous injuries. 11. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, coupled with the nature and gravity of the specific allegations attributed to the Petitioners, this Court finds no justifiable ground to exercise discretion under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’. The allegations prima facie discloses a serious offence warranting thorough investigation, and the Petitioners, in the considered opinion of this Court, do not merit the relief of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the prayer for pre- arrest bail is rejected. 12. Hence, this criminal petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 06.02.2026 VTS