Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8139 (AP)

Bhumika R v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

CRLP/6320/2026 · 2026-08-17

Y Lakshmana Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010385512026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6320/2026 Between: 1. BHUMIKA R, D/O. KAMALAKAR NAIDU,AGEDABOUT 23 YEARS ABOUT, R/O DOOR NO. 3/19 BTHATIPARTHIVILLAGE, POYYA POST,THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 2. KAMALAKAR NAIDU R, S/O. R.PATTABI NAIDU,AGEDABOUT 51 YEARS ABOUT, R/O DOOR NO. 3/19 B,THATIPARTHIVILLAGE, POYYA POST,THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3. ANURADHA R, W/O. KAMALAKAR NAIDU,AGEDABOUT 45 YEARS ABOUT, R/O DOOR NO. 3/19 B,THATIPARTHIVILLAGE, POYYA POST,THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 4. BUNNY R, S/O. KAMALAKAR NAIDU,AGEDABOUT 21 YEARS ABOUT, R/O DOOR NO. 3/19 B,THATIPARTHIVILLAGE, POYYA POST,THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI. 2. YALAVARTHI SURENDRA, S/O.Y.SEETHARAM PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARSCHINTHALAPALEMVILLAGE, YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6320 of 2026 Dated 18.08.2026 Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): VAJJA CHETHAN KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.69 of 2026 of Yerpedu Urban Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’). 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 the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 have already been served with notices as contemplated under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’/Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and that, in view of the issuance of the said notices, there is no immediate apprehension of arrest to the petitioners. 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6320 of 2026 Dated 18.08.2026 4. Having regard to the above submission and the fact that the petitioners have already been served with notices under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’, this Court is of the view that the apprehension expressed by the petitioners does not survive for consideration at this stage. The petitioners shall comply with the terms of the notices and cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation. 5. In view of the above, no further orders are required in the present Criminal Petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 18.08.2026 RSI 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6320 of 2026 Dated 18.08.2026 40 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6320 of 2026 18.08.2026 RSI