APHC010281882026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4498/2026 Between: 1. SHAIK MASTAN, S/O. BASHAAGED 23 YEARS, R/O. B 12- 439/4SANTHI NAGAR, BUCHIREDDYPALEM,NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , Rep by itsStation House Officer,Buchireddypalem Police StationThrough Public Prosecutor,High Court Bldgs, Velaaapudi, AmaravatiGuntur District ...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 CourtPleased to enlarge the petitioner /A4 on anticipatory ail in the event of his arrest by the Police in connection with Crime No. 48 of 2026 on the file of Buchireddypalem UPS, SP5R Nellore District for the offences under Sections 191( 2 ), 191 (3), 109(1), 118(1), 308(5) r/w. 190 BNS and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. M.VINOD KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4498/2026 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 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.48 of 2026 of Buchireddypalem Police Station, SPSR Nellore District registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 118(1), 308(5) r/w. 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.03.2026 at 18.00 hrs at Srikaram Layout road near Rebala Mud road, Buchireddypalem Town and Mandal, the accused formed into an unlawful assembly and attempted to murder and voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant namely Pillichevula Akash and caused severe head injury and also extorted a gold chain weighing about 36 grams. 4. Mr. M.Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 submits that the petitioner had not committed any officence. He was falsely implicated in this case because of political rivalry. Entire investigation is completed. The rest of the accused have been arrested and enlarged on bail. Material portion of investigation is completed. Chances of tampered the evidence would not arise. He is willing to abide by any condition which this Court deems fit while enlarging the petitioner on pre-arrest bail. 5. Per contra, Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed to grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that there are specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and urged to dismiss the criminal petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 7. 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?” 8. As seen from the record, it is urged by the defacto complainant that the petitioner and other persons formed into an unlawful assembly and caused attempt to murder by voluntarily causing hurt to the defacto complainant and extorted a gold chain weighing about 36 grams. In the FIR name of the petitioner was specifically mentioned by the defacto complainant that the petitioner along with other accused formed into unlawful assembly and causes head injury and extorted a gold chain. No doubt other accused were enlarged on regular bail by learned Trial Court. The petitioner had urged this Court to grant pre-arrest bail. 9. In view of the specific allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail as it would amount to granting protection or shield to the persons against whom specific allegations are levelled, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 16.06.2026 AG 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4498/2026 Date: 16.06.2026 AG