APHC010283082026 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: 4549/2026 Between: 1. S M D ABRAR, S/O. SHAIK ALTHAF SHARIFF, AGED ABOUT 14- 1034 COOLINGS PETPUNGANUR TOWNANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REPRESENTED BYITS STATION HOUSB OFFICER, PUNGANUR UPS, ANNAMAYYA DISTTHE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF 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 may kindly be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in the above said false crime No. 103/2026, dt 29/4/2026, of Punganur UPS, Annamayya district and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BASHA SHAIK 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.103 of 2026 of S.H.O. Punganur Urban Police Station, Annamayya District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 332(b), 324(4), 118(1), 351(2) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard Sri Shaik Basha, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.04.2026 at about 01.00 hours, at the house of the Complainant bearing D.No.12/2-2, Thurupumogasala, Punganur Town, the accused, namely, S.M.D. Abrar of N.S. Peta, Punganur Town, who was having a relationship with the Complainant, criminally trespassed into her house armed with a stick, abused her in filthy language, beat her with the stick on her right hand causing a bleeding injury, threatened her with dire consequences, and damaged the refrigerator, television, bureau and other household articles worth about Rs.40,000/-. On hearing the cries of the Complainant, her parents and sister rushed to the spot, intervened and rescued her from the hands of the Accused. The accused also abused the Complainant's parents and sister in filthy language. Thereafter, the De facto Complainant lodged a report with the police, based on which the present crime was registered. 3 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has not committed any offence. He is falsely implicated in this case. The complaint of the De facto complainant is ill-motivated and false one. The Petitioner and the De facto complainant were in a live-in relationship for about five years. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of Petapunganur Town, Annamayya District, and he has a fixed abode. He may not evade the process of law. He would abide by any of the conditions which this Court deems fit to impose while granting pre-arrest bail. The entire investigation is completed and filing of the charge sheet is the only formality that remains. Therefore, he 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, stating that there are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner. The Petitioner trespassed into the house of the De facto complainant, beat her with a stick, and also ransacked the household articles of the De facto complainant, causing loss to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/-. The De facto complainant was admitted to the hospital for treatment. 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 sides, now the point for consideration is: "Whether the Petitioner is entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail?" 8. As seen from the record, the allegation against the Petitioner by the De facto complainant is that the Petitioner and the De facto complainant had a 4 live-in relationship for about five years. Later, the Petitioner got married another woman. When the De facto complainant enquired with the Petitioner as to why he cheated her, the Petitioner trespassed into the house of the De facto complainant with a stick, abused her in filthy language and beat her with a stick on her right hand, causing a bleeding injury. The Petitioner also threatened the De facto complainant with dire consequences. The Petitioner also abused the sister and parents of the De facto complainant in filthy language. The Petitioner caused damage to the refrigerator, T.V. and other domestic articles of the De facto complainant and caused loss to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/-. There are specific overt acts attributed to the Petitioner. 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. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 17.06.2026 DSV 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 5 152 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4549/2026 Dt: 17.06.2026 DSV 6 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI MAIN CASE No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4549/2026 PROCEEDING SHEET SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 03. 17.06.2026 Dr.YLR, J The Criminal Petition is dismissed. (Vide separate order) ________ Dr.YLR, J DSV 7 SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE