Date of reserved for orders: Date of pronouncement: 22.06.2026 Date of uploading: APHC010282502026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4509/2026 Between: 1. BODDUKURU PRASAD REDDY, S/O. PEERA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,R/O. ANUMASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, A.S. PETA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Through the Station House Officer, A.S. Peta Police Station, SPSR Nellore 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 Court pleased to enlarge the Petitioner / Accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 14/2026 on the file of A.S. Peta Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 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 be pleased to direct the respondent police not to arrest the petitioner herein / Accused No.1 in connection with Crime No. 14/2026 on the file of A.S. Peta Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, and pass such and other order/s that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. GOLLAMUDI NAGASATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 by the Petitioner/Accused No.1, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.14 of 2026 on the file of A.S.Peta Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 351(2), 49 r/w 3(5) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20232. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/Accused No.1 is the neighbouring farmer of the de facto complainant. There is no need to conduct any Test Identification Parade. 4. The de facto complainant is the accused in the complaint lodged by the petitioner. After culmination of the entire investigation, a charge sheet in Crime 1 ‘the BNSS’ 2 ‘the BNS’ No.115 of 2024 was filed and is pending for trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Accused Nos.6, 7 and 8 were arrested. 5. The de facto complainant suffered injuries in the hands of the persons who were deployed by the petitioner. The investigation so far reveals that the petitioner hired certain unruly elements to do away with the life of the de facto complainant. As per the statement of the de facto complainant, which was recorded while he was in the hospital, the petitioner/Accused No.1 had engaged some persons to do away with the life of the de facto complainant. The persons who approached the de facto complainant caused severe injuries to him by beating him with sticks. As there are specific allegations leveled against the petitioner that he had hired the persons who caused the grievous injuries to the de facto complainant, accusation is well founded. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner inasmuch as there are specific allegations attributed against him. Pre-arrest bail is not a license or direction in favour of persons against whom accusations have been leveled. It has to be exercised very carefully in the rarest of rare cases. 6. Indeed, grant of pre-arrest bail is neither a license for commission of a grave offence nor a shield or protection for the persons who have allegedly committed grave offence, and against whom specific overt acts are attributed, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab3and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi). 4 3 (1980) 2 SCC 565 4 (2020) 5 SCC 1 7. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the specific allegations levelled against the Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to consider the request of Petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail as the Petitioner is disentitled for the relief. 8. Hence, this criminal petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 22.06.2026 JLSR Speaking  Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable  173 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4509 of 2026 22.06.2026 JLSR