Date of reserved for orders : Nil Date of pronouncement : 13.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010288392026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 13th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4634/2026 Between: 1. S BALAJI NAIDU, S/O S.NAGESH NAIDU,AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC SOFTWARE ENGINEER,R/O RAMASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, PUTTUR MANDAL,TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P. 2. S KANTHAMMA, W/O S. NAGESH NAIDU,AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE,R/O RAMASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, PUTTUR MANDAL,TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI 2. S DEEPA, W/O. S. ADHI NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.4-107/1, SATHYA SAI NAGAR, NEAR KESAVAYAGUNTA WATER TANK, SAI NAGAR, TIRUPATI. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 30.06.2026 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2026 IN CRL.P.NO.4634 OF 2026. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4634 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 1. CH NAGA MEHAR BABA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.43 of 2026 of Puttur Urban Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 74, 133, 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.02.2026, at about 1:30 p.m., the petitioners/accused unlawfully picked up a quarrel with the de-facto complainant at her house in Ramasamudram Village, abused her in filthy language, and physically assaulted her. It is alleged that Accused No.1 attacked her with an iron rod, while Accused Nos.2 and 3 also assaulted and criminally intimidated her, causing multiple bleeding injuries. The accused are further alleged to have humiliated the complainant by cutting her hair, tearing her jacket, and assaulting her in public view, 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4634 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 besides attacking her husband when he intervened. The injured were shifted to CHC, Puttur, for treatment. Based on the statement of the de-facto complainant, Crime No.43 of 2026 was registered on the file of Puttur Urban Police Station, Tirupati District, for the aforesaid offences. 3. Mr.Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the present criminal case has been falsely foisted owing to a long-standing civil dispute relating to ancestral property, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.30 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. It is contended that the persons of the complainant party are the aggressors and that a counter case in Crime No.44 of 2026 was registered based on the report lodged by petitioner No.2. The learned counsel further submits that there are material contradictions in the prosecution case regarding the occurrence, the transportation of the injured, and the alleged injuries sustained by the complainant party. It is further submitted that the present case is a continuation of a series of false criminal cases instituted by the complainant party to exert pressure in the pending civil litigation. Therefore, it is prayed that the Criminal Petition be allowed. 4. Mr.A.Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners and submitted that the 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4634 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 allegations against them are grave in nature. It is submitted that the statements of the injured witnesses and the other material collected in the course of investigation prima facie establish the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. It is further submitted that the investigation has revealed sufficient material connecting the petitioners with the crime and that the contentions raised by the petitioners are matters to be decided during trial. It is contended that, if enlarged on bail, the petitioners are likely to influence the prosecution witnesses and hamper the progress of the trial. Therefore, it is prayed that the Criminal Petition be dismissed. 5. Mr.Meka Rahul Chowdary, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 reiterated the submissions advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and further contended that the allegations against the petitioners are grave and are supported by the statements of the injured witnesses and the material collected in the course of investigation. It is further submitted that, if enlarged on bail, the petitioners are likely to influence the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, it is prayed that the Criminal Petition be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2/de facto complainant. Perused the material available on record. 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4634 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 7. As seen from the record, the petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 and 3. The allegations against the petitioners are grave in nature. The statements of the injured witnesses and the other material collected during the investigation prima facie disclose the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, including the existence of a civil dispute and the registration of a counter case, are matters to be established during the course of trial. There are specific and clear overt acts attributed against the petitioners. 8. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, as it would amount to giving a shield, or protection or license to the petitioners who had allegedly caused severe injuries to the victim, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)2. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 (2020) 5 SCC 1 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4634 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 13.07.2026 RSI Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4634 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 128 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4634 of 2026 13.07.2026 RSI