APHC010330632026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5284/2026 Between: 1. KOLLIMALLA GOPI, S/O APPALANAIDU,AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 4, BUTCHAYYA PETAPEDA MADINA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 531026. 2. KOLLIMALLA NAGESWARARAO, S/O RAMUNAIDU LATE,AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO. 4, BUTCHAYYA PETAPEDA MADINA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 531026. 3. DASARI NAGESH ALIAS NAGESSWARA RAO, S/O APPALANAIDU,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BUTCHAYYA PETA,PEDA MADINA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 531026. 4. MAJJI VASU, S/O NOOKARAJU,AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO. 2-75, BUTCHAYYA PETA,PEDA MADINA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 531026. 5. KONA HEMANTH KUMAR, S/O NOOKARAJU,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO. 1-2, BUTCHAYYA PETA,PEDA MADINA, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT - 531026. 6. YARRAMSETTI SEKHAR, S/O NAGESWARAO,AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO. 45, BUTCHAYYA PETA,PEDA MADINA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 531026. 7. KOLLIMALLA SRINU, S/O SOMUNAIDU,AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO. 2-56, BUTCHAYYA PETA,PEDA MADINA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 531026. 8. KESAMSETTI RAJU NAIDU, S/O ESWARARAO,AGED ABOUT 32 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5284 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 3-58,BUTCHAYYA PETA, PEDA MADINA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 531026. 9. YARRAMSETTI MURALI ALIAS MURALI KRISHNA, S/O ESWARARAO,AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 0, BUTCHAYYA PETAPEDA MADINA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 531026. 10. NAMMI SRINU, S/O RAJUBABU,AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO. 4-50, BUTCHAYYA PETAPEDA MADINA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 531026. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Police, Butchippapeta Police Station, Anakapalli District, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P SRIDHAR MANIKANTA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 11 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.10 of 2026 of Butchiyyapeta Police Station, Anakapalli District registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5284 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 109(1), 118(1), 115(2) and 49 read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.01.2026 at about 10:30 a.m., due to a dispute relating to the cutting of an Acacia plantation situated in Government Hill Poramboke land at Pedamadina Village, the accused, led by the Sarpanch, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly armed with knives, sticks, and stones. It is alleged that they attacked the de facto complainant and his supporters with the intention of preventing the complainant from contesting the forthcoming Local Body Elections and to eliminate him. In the said attack, Viyyapu Ramu sustained a fracture, Viyyapu Chiranjeevi sustained a bleeding head injury, and several others suffered simple injuries. On the arrival of the police, the accused allegedly dispersed from the scene. 4. Mr. Pathuri Sridhar Manikanta, learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 11 submits that the Petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to political rivalry in connection with the forthcoming local body elections. It is contended that none of the alleged offences are attracted against the Petitioners and that the present crime has been registered only to gain political sympathy. It is further submitted that a counter-case has already been registered at the instance of Accused No.1 in 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5284 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 Crime No.11 of 2026 against the de facto complainant and others. The Petitioners undertake to cooperate with the investigation, abide by any conditions imposed by this Court, and appear before the trial Court as and when required. 5. Per contra, Ms.P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners are imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that they may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 6. It is further urged that the prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioners may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the integrity of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 8. 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 Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 9. As seen from the record, there are specific overt acts attributed to each of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 11 in the commission of the alleged 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5284 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 offences. The allegations disclose their active participation in the unlawful assembly and the assault on the victims, resulting in grievous as well as simple injuries. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusations, the specific overt acts attributed to the Petitioners, and the requirement of a fair and effective investigation, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail. Granting such relief at this stage would amount to extending protection to persons against whom specific allegations have been levelled. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2 also do not warrant the grant of anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 22.07.2026 KMS 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5284 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5284/2026 Date: 22.07.2026 KMS