APHC010372452026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 10th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6054/2026 Between: 1. SYED ZAID AS PER FIR SHOWN AS SYED JAID, S. SYED KHAJA MOHIDDIN, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC STUDENT, R/O. D.NO. 12/190, MANCHALARAMAIAH STREET,NEAR AMMAVARISHALA, KADAPA CITY,YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, PS KADAPA II TOWN UPS, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. V V RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 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 No.7 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.59 of 2026 of Kadapa II Town Urban Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 189(3), 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6054 of 2026 Dated 10.08.2026 191(2), 191(3), 189(5), 192, 196(1)(a), 197(1)(c), 132, 121(1), 109(1), 61(2) and 49 read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Mr.V.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Substantial portion of investigation is completed. There are no similar adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioner. He has not committed any offence. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the learned Trial Court, in the impugned order, erroneously observed that the Petitioner and other persons, being members of an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons, committed a heinous offence. It is contended that no deadly weapons were used by any of the accused. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has neither access to nor control over the CCTV footage, drone camera footage, mobile phone data, social media communications, Google Timeline data, or any other electronic evidence. The grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner would not impede or prejudice the collection or preservation of such electronic evidence. It is therefore contended that the learned Sessions Judge erroneously dismissed the application for pre-arrest bail on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6054 of 2026 Dated 10.08.2026 3. Per contra, Mr.A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner, submits that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. It is further submitted that the Petitioner and other persons have formed into an unlawful assembly, pelted stones on police personnel and caused grievous injuries. Investigation is at nascent stage. Some more material witnesses have to be examined. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On perusal of the record, the allegation against the Petitioner is that he conspired with other Accused, formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, caused damage to public property, and inflicted grievous injuries on Police personnel by pelting stones. This Court, vide order dated 07.07.2026, dismissed the pre‑arrest bail application filed by Accused Nos.13, 28 and 31 in Crl.P.No.5155 of 2026. On the same day, the regular bail application filed by Accused No.36 in Crl.P.No.5233 of 2026 was also dismissed. Further, by order dated 08.07.2026, the pre‑arrest bail application filed by Accused No.27 in Crl.P.No.4929 of 2026 was dismissed. This Court, vide order dated 20.07.2026, dismissed the pre-arrest bail application filed by the Accused.14. So far, 60 witnesses have been examined. The investigation 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6054 of 2026 Dated 10.08.2026 is at a crucial stage, and several more material witnesses remain to be examined. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.7, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.7 at this juncture. 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:10.08.2026 KMS 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6054 of 2026 Dated 10.08.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6054 of 2026 Date: 10.08.2026 KMS