APHC010341312026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE 7th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5465 OF 2026 Between: 1. Pinninti Rajasekhar Alias Sekhar, S/o. Joga Rao,Aged about 31 years,R/o.D.No 3-3-3,JayaramachandrapuramPalasa-Kasibugga Municipality,Palasa Mandal,Srikakulam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court at Amaravathi, ,Kasibugga Police Station,Srikakulam District 2. Pudi Chalapathi, S/o. Late Ramayya, age 66 years, Jayaramachandrapuram Village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. Respondent No.2 is impleaded as per the Court's order dated 14.07.2026 in Crl.P.No.5465 of 2026. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: A RAVI SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order: 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 pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.153 of 2025 on the file of Kasibugga Police Station, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Mr. K. Yaswanth, learned legal aid counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record. 3. Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent and a law-abiding citizen. He contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present crime, that he is willing to cooperate with the investigation, and that his custodial interrogation is not required. Hence, he prayed to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the Criminal Petition and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature. He further submitted that the investigation is at a crucial stage and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective and complete investigation. It is also submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and that a history sheet is maintained against him. Therefore, he prayed that the Criminal Petition be dismissed. 5. On perusal of the record, the allegation against the petitioner is that he had assaulted the deceased with a beer bottle and caused injuries. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, unable to bear the humiliation and the injuries sustained in the said incident, the deceased committed suicide. The post-mortem report is still awaited and the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the deceased are yet to be ascertained. The material placed before this Court also discloses that a history sheet is maintained against the petitioner and that he was previously involved in two criminal cases under the provisions of the BNS/ the IPC. 6. In the present case, the Petitioner has not disclosed in the petition the pendency of the previous antecedents against him. 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 refu sal 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. 1 2026 SCC Online 188 8. The revised Standing Order No.282(1) of the High Court of the Andhra Pradesh stated in every application for bail presented to the High Court, the Petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, and if made shall state the result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information. 9. 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, and 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 Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab2 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)3. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. 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: 07.08.2026 JLSR (1980) 2 SCC 565 (2020) 5 SCC 1 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5465 of 2026 Date:07.08.2026 JLSR