APHC010358172026 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: 5768/2026 Between: PENUGONDA TARUN KUMAR ALIAS CHINNA, S/O ANJANEYULU, AGED 29 YEARS,D.NO. 4-3-78, BRAMHANAPALLE ROAD,ANKALAMMAPETA, PULIVENDULA TOWN, YSR KADAPA. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Anriaravati-522239. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: SARMA C V S S Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5768 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.65 of 2026 of Pulivendula U/G Police Station, Kadapa District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 109 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Sri O.Uday Kumar, the learned counsel, representing, Mr. Sarma C.V.S.S., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He has not committed any offence. He is law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 29.05.2026 in Crl.P.No.4429 of 2026, enlarged Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 on regular bail, as they had been in judicial custody for 47 days. Therefore, he prays that the present Criminal Petition be allowed. 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5768 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 4. Per contra, Mr.A.Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the investigation is still pending and that several material witnesses are yet to be examined. He further submits that the petitioner is a rowdy sheeter and has as many as eleven criminal antecedents, which have not been disclosed in the present petition. It is also contended that the investigation is still at a nascent stage and, so far, only five witnesses have been examined. Hence, he prays that the Criminal Petition be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the petitioner/Accused No.2 was arrested on 29.05.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 54 days. The investigation is still pending, and several material witnesses remain to be examined. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he conspired with the other accused to do away with the life of the de-facto complainant/victim. No doubt, a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 29.05.2026 in Crl.P.No.4429 of 2026, enlarged Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 on regular bail. However, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the said accused. The petitioner is admittedly a rowdy sheeter and has eleven criminal antecedents, which he has failed to disclose in the present petition. Having regard to the specific role attributed to the 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5768 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 petitioner, his criminal antecedents, the fact that the investigation is still at a nascent stage, and that only five witnesses have been examined so far, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. 7. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.,1 wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 47 and 48, it was observed that bail applications are often considered on the basis of prima facie material placed before the Court at different stages of the proceedings. The Court held that non-disclosure of material facts, such as criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, custody period, and the stage of trial, may result in an erroneous grant or refusal of bail. It was further held that every bail applicant is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and any coercive processes pending against him, duly supported by an affidavit. Such disclosure is necessary to ensure transparency, uniformity, and integrity in bail adjudication. 8. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan supra, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this juncture. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12026 SCC Online 188 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5768 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an application for default/statutory bail before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, if he is otherwise eligible in accordance with law. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date:22.07.2026 RSI Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5768 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 56 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5768 of 2026 Date: 22.07.2026 RSI