APHC010289072026 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: 4646/2026 Between: 1. MEKALA BHARATH, AS PER FIR MARELIA BHARATH S/O. M. NARAYANA, AGED 23 YEARS ,R/O D.NO. 15/449, HABIBULLAH STREET, KADAPA CITY DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH, COURT BUILDINGS, 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 grant Anticipatory bail to the Petitioner, in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 93/2026 on the file of Railway Koduru Urban Police Station and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. CHAMARTHY LEELA SRINNIVASA VARMA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 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 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.93 of 2026 of Railway Koduru Urban Police Station, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 109 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard Sri Chamarthy Leela Srinnivasa Varma, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.04.2026 at about 10.00 PM, near the Forest Bungalow adjacent to the Toll Gate, Kodur, the accused, namely, Marrella Bharat, picked up a quarrel with the De facto complainant, namely, Chennamsetty Vignesh, abused him in filthy language, attacked him with a knife, and caused bleeding injuries on his right shoulder and the left side of his head. It is further alleged that the accused threatened to kill the De facto complainant and attempted to attack him again, but he narrowly escaped. On the intervention of the friends and relatives of the De facto complainant, the accused fled from the scene. Thereafter, the injured was shifted to the hospital for treatment and subsequently lodged a report with the police, based on which the present crime was registered. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has not committed any offence and is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family. He was not 3 present at the scene of offence. There was a delay of one day in lodging the FIR, which has not been explained. The injuries are not life-threatening in nature. The incident arose suddenly at a crowded place during the festival. The witnesses are kith and kin of the de-facto complainant. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of Kadapa District and has a fixed abode. He may not evade the process of law. He would abide by any conditions that this Court may deem fit to impose while granting pre-arrest bail. The Petitioner is ready to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. The De facto complainant took treatment at Tirupati and thereafter came to the police station to lodge a report, which shows that the injuries are not serious or life- threatening in nature. Hence, learned counsel urged this Court to grant pre- arrest bail to the Petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner on the ground that the accusations are well-founded. It is submitted that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is further 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. There are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner. Hence, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 4 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: "Whether the Petitioner is entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail?" 8. On perusal of the record, it appears that some more witnesses are yet to be examined. The material portion of the investigation is not yet completed. The accusations against the Petitioner are well-founded. There are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner. The De facto complainant had suffered injuries at the hands of the Petitioner. The victim suffered severe injuries, one on the head and another on the shoulder. If the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, it would prejudice the free and fair investigation. Further, the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is required in the event of his arrest, as the investigation is still in progress. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the petition. 9. The Complaint lodged by the De facto complainant discloses that the Petitioner stabbed him with a knife on his right shoulder, causing a bleeding injury. It is further alleged that the Petitioner abused him in filthy language and again attacked him with a knife on the head, causing another bleeding injury. The activities of the Petitioner did not stop there but further proceeded to the extent of attempting to stab the De facto complainant once again. However, the De facto complainant escaped the blow and was rescued by his friends and other persons from the clutches of the Petitioner. Therefore, the request of the Petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail is not found convincing or reasonable. 5 10. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. ] _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 17.06.2026 DSV 6 153 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4646/2026 Dt: 17.06.2026 DSV 7 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI MAIN CASE No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4646/2026 PROCEEDING SHEET SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 3. 17.06.2026 Dr.YLR, J The Criminal Petition is dismissed. (Vide separate order) ________ Dr.YLR, J DSV 8 SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE