APHC010357292026 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: 5767/2026 Between: 1. KONDA DURGA PRASAD ALIAS KODA, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAOAGE 28 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 65-9-4, ARIAND NAGAR,RAJAHMUNDRY URBAN, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by itsPublic Prosecutor, Honble High Court of Andhra Pradeshat Amaravati Through the Station House Officer.Ill Town Law Order Police Station, RajamahendravaramEast Godavari District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. B.SUDHAKAR KUMAR 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 Petitioner/Accused No.4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5767 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 No.430 of 2025 of III Town L&O Police Station, Rajamahendravaram registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 118(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.09.2025 at about 1:15 a.m., while the de-facto complainant was having tea at Devi Chowk, Rajamahendravaram, after completing his Rapido work, the accused and others arrived in a car and assaulted him with sticks, cement bricks, hands, and legs. As a result, he sustained bleeding injuries on his head, below his left eye, and beneath his chin. The accused fled the scene, and the injured was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Rajamahendravaram, by his mother. 4. Mr B. Sudakar Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.4 submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated and that his name does not find place either in the complaint or in the FIR. It is contended that no specific overt act is attributed to the Petitioner and that his implication is based solely on the alleged confession of the co-accused, while the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant are simple in nature. It is further submitted that the investigation is substantially complete, all material witnesses have been examined, and the co-accused have already been granted regular/anticipatory bail, thereby entitling the Petitioner to parity. The 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5767 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that initially the case was registered for the offence under Section 118(1) of ‘the BNS’. Later, after receipt of would certificate where it is revealed that the de-facto complainant suffered only simple injuries the Section of law was altered to Section 109 of ‘the I.P.C’. Accused No.6 was granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 05.02.2026. Rest of the accused except the Petitioner were arrested and released on bail. The name of the Petitioner was not mentioned in the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant. The learned counsel also submits that the Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, the sole breadwinner of his family, and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. 5. Per contra, Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of any relief to the Petitioner, contending that the allegations against him are well-founded. He submitted that although the Petitioner's name does not find place in the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, his identity is yet to be established through a Test Identification Parade. He further submitted that conducting the Test Identification Parade is essential for the effective completion of the investigation. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5767 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 7. 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 Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 8. As seen from the record, Accused No.6 was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 05.02.2026. However, the present Petitioner/Accused No.4 was denied anticipatory bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 30.06.2026 in Crl.M.P.Bail No.732 of 2026. The FIR was originally registered for the offence punishable under Section 118(1) of ‘the BNS.,’ which was subsequently altered. The wound certificate discloses that the de facto complainant sustained simple injuries. However, X-rays were also taken. The injuries noted include bleeding injuries to the left eye, left side of the nose, and below the chin. 9. According to the complaint, on 13.09.2025 at about 1:15 a.m., while the de facto complainant was returning home and stopped for tea, six persons arrived in a white-coloured Duster car, got down from the vehicle, and assaulted him with sticks and cement bricks, causing bleeding injuries to his head and chin. Though the English translation of the complaint differs to some extent from the original Telugu version, the Telugu complaint specifically mentions the names of Chinna Budda, Mark, Kappu Reddy, and three other persons as the assailants. Thus, the de facto complainant had identified three of the assailants by name. It is true that the name of the present Petitioner does not find place in the FIR. However, the allegation is that six persons 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5767 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 participated in the assault. In such circumstances, the Investigating Officer is under a legal obligation to conduct a Test Identification Parade through the jurisdictional Magistrate to enable the de facto complainant to identify the remaining suspects, including the present Petitioner. Until such identification is carried out, the role of the Petitioner cannot be conclusively ruled out. 10. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the requirement of conducting a Test Identification Parade, and the specific overt acts attributed to the Petitioner in the course of investigation, this Court is not inclined to entertain the request for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage. In view of the specific allegations and overt acts attributed to the Petitioner/Accused No.1, 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 Punjab 1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2.Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 11. 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.5767 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 131 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5767/2026 Date: 22.07.2026 KMS