APHC010359942026 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: 5797/2026 Between: 1. SYRIL MATHEW, S/O JOSHY DOMINIC, A.4AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEER/O. KURISUMOOTTIL HOUSE, VEETTICHAL AREA,RAMAN-KUTH POST, NILAMBUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE 2. NISHAD KA ALIAS KOLAPURAMBIL ABU NISHAD ALIAS SIM CARD NISHAD, S/O ABU K.K., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,R/O. CHERIYAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, UNION CHRISTIAN COLLEGE P.O.ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): MD SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5797 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 10 on bail in Crime No.84 of 2025 of KIA Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 10 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Mr.M.D.Saleem, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. They have not committed any offence. They are law-abiding citizens. They are the sole breadwinners of the family. They have got fixed abode. The Petitioners undertake to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioners. Therefore, he prays that the present Criminal Petition be allowed. 3. Per contra, Mr.A.Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioners are released on 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5797 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. As seen from the record, the allegations against the petitioners are that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, intercepted the Innova car bearing No. MH01EV4927, wrongfully restrained and kidnapped its drivers, namely Palkesh Kumar and Anirudh Singh, broke the window glasses of the car with hammers, robbed an amount of Rs.2,78,80,000/- kept in a secret locker fitted beneath the middle seat of the Innova car, and escaped in different vehicles. The investigation is at a crucial stage. So far, only eight witnesses have been examined. The petitioners were arrested on 06.05.2026 and have been in judicial custody for the past 77 days only. The period required for custodial interrogation has not yet been completed. The petitioners are also required to be identified in a Test Identification Parade to be conducted by the learned Magistrate concerned. There are six similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioners. However, the petitioners 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5797 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 have not disclosed the said previous adverse antecedents in the present petition. 6. 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. 7. 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 petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 10 on bail at this juncture. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 12026 SCC Online 188 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5797 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 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.5797 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 61 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5797 of 2026 Date: 22.07.2026 RSI