APHC010413062026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6791/2026 Between: 1. MADIGA HANUMANTHARAYUDU ALIAS HANUMANTHU, AGED 31 YEARS,S/O. M.GOVINDAPPA,R/O. YALAGALAVANKA VILLAGE,BELUGUPPA MANDAL,NOW RESIDING AT AMBEDKAR NAGAR,HINDUPUR TOWN, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT - 515134 2. BOYA DASARI NANDINI, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. LATE D.MANJUNATH,N/O. SINGEPALLI VILLAGE, BOMMANAHAL MANDAL,ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT - 515871 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through SHO, Kalyanadurgam Town Police Station,Represented by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): MUNNANGI THANMAI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6791 of 2026 Dated 13.08.2026 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.2 and 3 on bail in Sessions Case No.117 of 2019 (Crime No.02 of 2018 of Kalyandurgam Police Station), registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC’), on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ananthapuramu. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner/Accused No.3 is a woman having two children. It is further submitted that the allegation against petitioner/Accused No.3 is that she had developed an extramarital relationship and caused the death of her husband. 4. As seen from the record, the petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos.2 and 3 in S.C.No.117 of 2019. On 07.02.2026, petitioner/Accused No.2 was absent, whereas petitioner/Accused No.3 was present. The learned Trial Court was constrained to issue an NBW against Accused No.2. The learned Trial Court also directed the Station House Officer concerned to serve 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6791 of 2026 Dated 13.08.2026 summons and produce the witnesses on the next date as per the schedule. The matter was posted to 17.06.2026. 5. On 17.06.2026, the NBW issued against Accused No.2 was still pending. As per the docket order of the learned Trial Court, Accused No.3 was called absent and there was no representation on her behalf. Therefore, the learned Trial Court issued an NBW against Accused No.3 also. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, on 17.06.2026, petitioner/Accused No.3 was present and that the Bench Clerk had recorded her presence. It is further submitted that Accused No.3 left the Court premises. The matter was placed before the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer thereafter issued an NBW against the petitioner stating that the petitioner/Accused No.3 was absent. 7. It is important to note that, even assuming that petitioner/Accused No.3 was not present when the matter was taken up by the Presiding Officer, at least the learned counsel appearing for Accused No.3 ought to have brought about the appearance of the petitioner before the Bench Clerk concerned or the In-charge Court. However, the learned Trial Court has specifically recorded that there was no representation. Had the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared before the In-charge Court, the aforesaid submissions could have been made. 8. Be that as it may, when the matter is at the stage of trial and the prosecution witnesses are being examined, the accused are required to be 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6791 of 2026 Dated 13.08.2026 vigilant and ensure their presence before the learned Trial Court. In view of the proceedings dated 07.02.2026, Accused No.3 ought to have been more vigilant and ensured her presence before the Presiding Officer. 9. If the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of obstruction to the regular progress of the trial. The petitioners are facing serious and grave charges, including the charge of murder. The petitioners have also violated the conditions of bail imposed by the learned Trial Court by remaining absent. 10. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 on bail. If the petitioners remain in judicial custody for some more time, the learned Trial Court would be in a position to complete the trial and pronounce the judgment. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. 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: 13.08.2026 RSI 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6791 of 2026 Dated 13.08.2026 38 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6791 of 2026 Date: 13.08.2026 RSI