APHC010289212026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4663/2026 Between: 1. BOYA BALANJANEYULU, S/O. B. GIDDAIAH,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.50/348 H 13,K.P.N.R COLONY, B.CAMP, KUMOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor,Through Kumool III Town Police Station,Kurnool District A.P.High Court of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU 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 Petitioner/Accused No.4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.135 of 2026 of Kurnool III Town Police Station, Kurnool District, registered 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4663 of 2026 Dated 17.06.2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 126(2) and 109(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNS‟). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 12.05.2026 at about 01:10 AM, the complainant, M. Suneel Kumar, was wrongfully restrained beside Chaitanya School, Sreerama Nagar, Kurnool Town, by Accused No.1 Chinni @ Krishna Prasad, Accused No.2 Sekhar, and their associates. In the incident, Accused No.1 attacked the complainant with a knife with an intention to kill him. The complainant, while defending himself, sustained injuries on his left hand. The other accused also assaulted him with stones and rods and attempted to throttle him. The injured was shifted to GGH, Kurnool, for treatment and, thereafter, lodged a report at the Police Station on the same day at about 12:15 hours. The incident arose due to prior enmity between the parties. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER 3. Sri T. Karthik Chandra Mouli, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the above crime without any basis. There are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed to him, and his name does not find mention in the complaint or FIR. Even if the allegations are taken at face value, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 126(2), 109(1) r/w 3(5) of „the BNS.,‟ are not made out against him. The Petitioner was not present at the scene of offence and has no connection with the alleged incident, and there is no prima facie material linking him to the crime. He is a law-abiding citizen, 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4663 of 2026 Dated 17.06.2026 willing to cooperate with the investigation, and undertakes to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. The Petitioner apprehends arrest on false allegations and seeks anticipatory bail to avoid irreparable harm and injustice, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 4. Per contra, Sri K. Sandeep, 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 Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law and it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: 7. As seen from the record, the de-facto complainant has stated that Accused No.1 and his associates caused injuries. Though an FIR is not an encyclopedia of all facts, the Investigating Officer ought to have elicited 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4663 of 2026 Dated 17.06.2026 specific details from the de-facto complainant regarding the identity and role of the associates of Accused No.1. However, the Investigating Officer has merely reproduced the contents of the FIR in the statements recorded under Section 161 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ without conducting a proper and detailed investigation. Even otherwise, the allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 are omnibus in nature. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of Kurnool and has a fixed place of abode. So far, six witnesses have been examined and a substantial portion of the investigation has been completed. In such circumstances, subject to the imposition of certain stringent conditions to ensure the Petitioner‟s appearance before the learned Trial Court, the ends of justice would be met. 8. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.4. 9. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of arrest, Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials. ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required. iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4663 of 2026 Dated 17.06.2026 every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. v. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 17.06.2025 KMS 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4663 of 2026 Dated 17.06.2026 84 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITIONNo.4663 of 2026 Date:17.06.2026 KMS