APHC010179512026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2610/2026 Between: 1. MEEJURU PRATAP, S/O VEERA RAGHAVULU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O CHENIGUNTA VILLAGE, AKKAMPETA POST, TADA MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. ...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 release the Petitioners who was arrayed as Accused in Crime No. 197 of 2025 on the file of Tada Police Station, Tirupathi District, Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2610/2026 ORDER:- The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the petitioner/Accused, seeking regular bail in Crime No. 197 of 2025 on the file of Tada Police Station, Tirupathi District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 103(1), 118(1) and 126(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 26.11.2025 the accused visited the Puncture shop along with the cycle and asked to fit the parts of the cycle and fill up the air. The deceased refused, as it was only a puncture shop for Lorries. As a result, the accused became enraged and grabbed an iron rod from the puncture shop and beat the deceased on neck, ribs and hands and the deceased fell down due to injuries. Meanwhile the complaint and deceased‟s son interfered, but the accused pushed them and picked up a cement brick and beat the complainant on his head, which resulted in bleeding injuries. Thereafter, the complainant and the deceased were shifted to SS Hospital, Tada for treatment. After getting first aid, deceased was shifted to Medicover Hospital, Nellore for better treatment and on 28.11.2025 at 15-40 hours the deceased died while undergoing treatment. 3 3. Heard Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and is falsely implicated in the present crime. It is submitted that the Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 01.12.2025. Learned counsel would further submit that the investigation in the present crime has been completed, charge sheet has been filed. Learned counsel would further submit that, in this case, no further investigation is required and hence, prayed to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor though submits that the investigation in the present crime has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed, opposed the petition and contends that this is a heinous crime of murder committed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that as charge sheet is being filed, there is likelihood of witness tampering or intimidation if bail is granted to the petitioner. 6. Considering the rival submissions advanced on either side and upon careful perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. The record, at this stage, reveals the presence of prima facie material indicating the involvement of the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. It is also pertinent to note that, mere filing of the charge 4 sheet does not automatically entitle an Accused to regular bail. The settled position of law is that filing of the charge sheet is only one of the factors to be considered and cannot override other material considerations such as the gravity of the offence, the nature of evidence collected, and the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that, there is no justifiable ground to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 15.04.2026 UPS 5 51 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2610 OF 2026 Dt: 15.04.2026 UPS