APHC010381732026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6187/2026 Between: 1. P V RAJANI KUMARI, W/O. GUDAVALLI RAJA SEKHAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,R/O D.NO. 12/214, RAMALAYAM STREET,RUSTUMBADA, MACHILIPATNAM, 2. GUDAVALL VENKATA NAGA RAJA SEKHAR, S/O. LATE RAMBABUAGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,R/O D.N0.5-42B, MAIN ROAD,SITARAMAPURAM AGRAHARAM,KALIDINDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. PINNI CHANDRA MOULI ALIAS CHANDU, S/O. LATE SESHU BABU,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,R/O PLOT NO.368, DRIVERS COLONY,HOUSING BOARD COLONY, MACHILIPATNAM. 4. PINNI LOKESH, S/O. LATE SESHU BABU,AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,R/O DRIVERS COLONY, HOUSING BOARD COLONY,MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through S.H.O, Chilakalapudi Police Station,Machilipatnam, Krishna District,Rep.by Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): AKULA VAMSI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6187 of 2026 Dated 05.08.2026 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4, for granting of bail in connection with Crime No.197 of 2026 of Chilakalapudi Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 333 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant and his brother had invested substantial amounts in a fish pond business with accused Rajini, who allegedly failed to repay the amounts despite repeated demands. Aggrieved by the demand for repayment, on 26.06.2026 at about 7.30 p.m., Rajini, along with the other accused, allegedly came to the complainant's house at Edepalli, Machilipatnam. It is alleged that the accused trespassed into the house, assaulted the complainant, and that accused Gudavalli Rajasekhar stabbed him with a vegetable-cutting knife, causing bleeding injuries. Thereafter, the accused fled from the scene, and the injured was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Machilipatnam, and subsequently to 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6187 of 2026 Dated 05.08.2026 Kamineni Hospital, Vijayawada, for better treatment. Accordingly, the police registered the present crime for the alleged offences. 3. Mr. Akula Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated due to a monetary and business dispute between Accused No.1 and the complainant's family. He contends that Accused No.1 was not present at the scene of the offence, while Accused Nos.3 and 4 are merely drivers against whom no specific overt acts have been alleged. He further submits that the petitioners were illegally detained prior to their formal arrest and that the investigation has already been substantially completed. It is also contended that the petitioners are permanent residents, there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the evidence, and their continued judicial custody is unwarranted. Therefore, he prays that the petitioners be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioners, submitting that the allegations against them are grave and that the material collected during the investigation prima facie establishes their involvement in the commission of the offences. He contends that the victim sustained grievous injuries in the attack and that the role attributed to each of the 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6187 of 2026 Dated 05.08.2026 petitioners is specific in nature. He further submits that the investigation is still in progress and that the release of the petitioners at this stage is likely to influence the witnesses and hamper the investigation. Therefore, he prays that the Criminal Petition be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 7. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?” 8. As seen from the record, there are specific allegations against the petitioners. The prosecution case discloses that the victim sustained grievous injuries in the alleged attack. The statements of the material witnesses collected during the course of investigation prima facie support the prosecution case. The investigation also reveals the specific role attributed to the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. The petitioners were arrested on 30.06.2026 and have been in judicial custody for the past 36 days. They are permanent residents of Machilipatnam and have got fixed abode. So far, only eight witnesses have been examined, and the investigation is still at a nascent stage. 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6187 of 2026 Dated 05.08.2026 7. The contention of the petitioners that the case arises out of a monetary and business dispute, that Accused No.1 was not present at the scene of offence, and that Accused Nos.3 and 4 are merely drivers without any overt acts are matters for trial and cannot be gone into at this stage. At the stage of considering a bail application, this Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. 8. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners, the grievous injuries sustained by the victim, the material available on record, and the fact that the investigation is still at a nascent stage, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on regular bail. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. 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: 05.08.2026 RSI 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6187 of 2026 Dated 05.08.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6187 of 2026 Date: 05.08.2026 RSI