APHC010283202026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4551/2026 Between: 1. RAMIREDDY RAJA REDDY, S/O. VEERA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O. FLAT NO.121, BLIL FRIDES RESIDENCE, GOPANAPALLI, TELLAPUR,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE, PERMANENT RESIDENF OF D.NO.4/172-2 UPSTAIRS, DORASANI ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDJCATURE 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 direct the S.H.O. Chapadu Police Station, Kadapa District, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr. No.46 of 2026 on the file of Chapadu Police Station, Kadapa District Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the Petitioners/Accused No.3 granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.46 of 2026 of Chapadu Police Station, Kadapa District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 126(2), 79 and 329(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNS‟). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments of the prosecution are that, the de facto complainant, namely Palagiri Padmavathi, wife of Sathya Vema Reddy, resident of Pedhaguravaluru Village, Chapadu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, lodged a report stating that the Petitioner herein and others came in a car, criminally trespassed into her house armed with iron rods, knives and sticks, dragged her husband Vema Reddy and attacked him. It is alleged that Accused No.1 attacked her husband with a knife and, when she intervened, she sustained a bleeding injury on her right hand. It is further alleged that the other accused beat her husband with iron rods, causing swelling injuries. On hearing their cries, the neighbours intervened, whereupon the Petitioner and the other accused left the place after threatening them with dire consequences. It is further alleged that there existed disputes relating to agricultural lands between the husband of the De facto complainant and the Petitioner, and that disputes had also arisen during the counting of the Hundi 3 of Sri Ramalayam after Sri Rama Navami celebrations. Basing on the said report, the Police registered Crime No.46 of 2026 on the file of Chapadu Police Station. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS 3. Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused No.3 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. 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 4 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. 6. The prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the progress of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 8. 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 Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: 9. The allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.3, even as per the complaint lodged by the De facto complainant, is that the Petitioner and the other accused caught hold of the neck of the husband of the De facto complainant. The other Accused allegedly beat him with iron rods. The husband of the De facto complainant suffered only simple injuries. The De facto complainant has made only bald and omnibus allegations against the Petitioner. The Petitioner is aged about 37 years and is working as a Software Engineer in Hyderabad. 5 10. It is important to note that Accused No.3 is the De facto complainant in a counter-case registered as Crime No.47 of 2026 on the file of Chapadu Police Station, Kadapa District. There is a case and a counter-case. It is the responsibility of the Investigating Officer to find out who the real aggressors are in the two incidents and file the charge sheet. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused No.3. 12. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of arrest, the Petitioners/Accused No.3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to him executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials. ii. The Petitioners/Accused No.3 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required. iii. The Petitioners/Accused No.3 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. iv. The Petitioners/Accused No.3 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. v. The Petitioners/Accused No.3 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioners/Accused No.3 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does 6 not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 18.06.2026 DSV 7 26 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4551/2026 Dated: 18.06.2026 DSV 8 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI MAIN CASE No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4551/2026 PROCEEDING SHEET SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 18.06.2026 Dr.YLR, J The Criminal Petition is allowed. (vide separate order) ________ Dr.YLR, J DSV 9