Nagineni Sankaraiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
CRLP/5541/2026 · 2026-07-14
Y Lakshmana Rao
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5914 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5914 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010344802026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5541/2026 Between:
NAGINENI SANKARAIAH, , S/O. NARAIAH,AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATON,R/O. LEBAKUVARIPALLI VILLAGE, PULLAMPETA MANDAL,VATHALUR, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.- 516107. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , Rep. by its Public ProsecutorHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
GADE NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5541 of 2026 Dated 15.07.2026
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 petitioner/Accused No.1, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.58 of 2026 of Pullampeta Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 331(1), 118(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Mr. Gade Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and that he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He has not committed any offence. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has got a fixed abode. It is further submitted that the de-facto complainant is the own younger brother of the petitioner. Because of the family disputes, the de-facto complainant has falsely implicated the petitioner in this case. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. Therefore, he prays that the present petition be allowed. 3. Per contra, Mr. A. Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be
3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5541 of 2026 Dated 15.07.2026
examined. It is contended that, if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. It is further submitted that the wound certificate is awaited. For better treatment, the victim/injured, who is the de-facto complainant, and the other injured persons were shifted to Ruya Hospital, Tirupati. Therefore, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
Perused the record. 5. As seen from the statement recorded by the Outpost Police Constable attached to Tirupati Ruya Hospital, the de-facto complainant, who is the younger brother of the petitioner, levelled specific and serious allegations against the petitioner that the petitioner and the other persons had beaten the de-facto complainant and the other victims with stout sticks and caused severe injuries. The investigation is at a nascent stage. There are specific and clear overt acts attributed to the petitioner. 6. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, as it would amount to giving a shield, or protection or license to the petitioner who had allegedly caused severe injuries to the victim, as per the judgments of the
4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5541 of 2026 Dated 15.07.2026
Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)2. 7. 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 petitioner. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. 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: 15.07.2026 RSI
1(1980) 2 SCC 565 (2020) 5 SCC 1
5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5541 of 2026 Dated 15.07.2026
148 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5541 of 2026 15.07.2026
RSI