APHC010411602026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE 19 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6758 OF 2026 Between: 1. Nakka Chinnayya, S/o Chenchayya BC peta,Mandapam Village, Sankhavaram Mandal,Kakinada District. 2. Nakka Manikyalu, S/o Nookayya, Aged about 74 years,R/o B.C. Colony, Mandapam Village,Sankhavaram Mandal, Kakinada District.Name wrongly mentioned in FIR as Nakka Manikyam 3. Nakka Satish, S/o Srinu, Aged about 25 years,R/o Mandapam Village, Sankhavaram Mandal,Kakinada District.Name Wrongly shown as Nakka Govindu in FIR 4. Nakka Nookaraju, S/o Lovaraju, Aged about 35years,R/o B.C. Peta, Mandapam Village,Sankhavaram Mandal, Kakinada District. 5. Barla Nukaraju, S/o Sathibabu, Aged about 32 years,R/o B.C. Colony, Mandapam Village,Sankhavaram Mandal, Kakinada District.Name mentiohed in FIR as Barla Nooka Raju 6. Gadula Lavakusulu, S/o Nookaraju, Aged about38 y B.C. Colony, Mandapam Village,Sankhavaram Mandal, Kakinada District. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE 19th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6758 OF 2026 1. Nakka Chinnayya, S/o Chenchayya, Aged about 39 years,R/o D.No.3 BC peta,Mandapam Village, Sankhavaram Mandal,Kakinada District. 2. Nakka Manikyalu, S/o Nookayya, Aged about 74 years,R/o B.C. Colony, Mandapam Village,Sankhavaram Mandal, Kakinada District.Name wrongly as Nakka Manikyam 3. Nakka Satish, S/o Srinu, Aged about 25 years,R/o Mandapam Village, Sankhavaram Mandal,Kakinada District.Name Wrongly shown as Nakka 4. Nakka Nookaraju, S/o Lovaraju, Aged about 35years,R/o B.C. Peta, nkhavaram Mandal, Kakinada District. 5. Barla Nukaraju, S/o Sathibabu, Aged about 32 years,R/o B.C. Colony, Mandapam Village,Sankhavaram Mandal, Kakinada District.Name mentiohed in FIR as Barla Nooka Raju 6. Gadula Lavakusulu, S/o Nookaraju, Aged about38 years,R/o D.No.3 B.C. Colony, Mandapam Village,Sankhavaram Mandal, Kakinada District. ...Petitioners IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO , Aged about 39 years,R/o D.No.3-44, BC peta,Mandapam Village, Sankhavaram Mandal,Kakinada District. 2. Nakka Manikyalu, S/o Nookayya, Aged about 74 years,R/o B.C. Colony, Mandapam Village,Sankhavaram Mandal, Kakinada District.Name wrongly 3. Nakka Satish, S/o Srinu, Aged about 25 years,R/o Mandapam Village, Sankhavaram Mandal,Kakinada District.Name Wrongly shown as Nakka 4. Nakka Nookaraju, S/o Lovaraju, Aged about 35years,R/o B.C. Peta, 5. Barla Nukaraju, S/o Sathibabu, Aged about 32 years,R/o B.C. Colony, Mandapam Village,Sankhavaram Mandal, Kakinada District.Name mentiohed ears,R/o D.No.3-37, B.C. Colony, Mandapam Village,Sankhavaram Mandal, Kakinada District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer,Annavaram Police Station, Kakinada DistrictRep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradeshat Amaravati. Counsel for the Petitioners: TUMATI CHAITANYA PRADEEP Counsel for the Respondent 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 Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.203 of 2026 on the file of the Annavaram Police Station, Kakinada registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 118(1), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’). 2. Mr. Tumati Chaitanya Pradeep, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioners are willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He, therefore, prayed to allow the petition and grant pre-arrest bail. 3. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the petition and submitted that, if the petitioners/accused are granted pre-arrest bail, there is every likelihood of his committing similar offences and hampering the investigation. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the de-facto complainant lodged the report on 17.07.2026, i.e., nearly 16 days after the alleged occurrence dated 01.07.2026. The de-facto complainant has stated that the matter was placed before the mediator/elders of the village for an amicable settlement, but no settlement could be arrived at. Therefore, he was constrained to lodge the complaint before the police. As per the averments in the complaint, the Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 allegedly beat the de-facto complainant with a stone and caused grievous injuries. 6. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to Petitioner Nos.2 to 6/Accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, subject to the following conditions. 7. The Criminal Petition is allowed with regard to Petitioner Nos.2 to 6/ Accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 with the following stringent conditions: i. In the event of his arrest, the Petitioner Nos.2 to 6/ Accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioner Nos.2 to 6/ Accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioner Nos.2 to 6/ Accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioner Nos.2 to 6/ Accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. v. The Petitioner Nos.2 to 6/ Accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court. vi. The Petitioner Nos.2 to 6/ Accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 shall surrender his passport to the Investigating Officer, if he states that he does not have passport, the Petitioner shall submit an affidavit to that effect. vii. The Petitioner Nos.2 to 6/ Accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 shall not indulge in any offence of a similar nature while on anticipatory bail. In the event of any violation of this condition or misuse of the liberty granted, it is open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of anticipatory bail in accordance with law. 8. However, considering the specific overt act attributed to Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1, this Court is not inclined to grant him pre-arrest bail to petitioner No.1/Accused No.1. 9. In the result the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 19.08.2026 JLSR 37 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6759 of 2026 Date:19.08.2026 JLSR