APHC010425462026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7000/2026 Between: BUCHIMGARI YANADAIAH, S/O. NARASIMHA, AGED 39 YEARS,R/O. RAMALINGAPURAM, RAMATHEERDAM VILLAGEVIDAVALURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI BUCHIREDDYPALEM UPS POLICE STATION SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 2. NADAVATI LAVANYA, W/O. LATE SRIHARI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,R/O. KOTHA MINAGALLU VILLAGE,BUCHIREDDYPALEM MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: KOMARA PRUDHVI RAJ Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. VELADI SAI SRI HARSHA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7000 of 2026 Dated 01.09.2026 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 petitioner/Accused No.3, for granting of bail in connection with Crime No.149 of 2026 of Buchireddypalem Urban Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 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 deceased, Nadavati Srihari, died under suspicious circumstances prior to 16.06.2026 near the Penna River. It is alleged that Accused No.1, Kudumula Harikrishna, who accompanied the deceased, falsely represented that he died of a heart attack, despite injuries noticed on the body. He allegedly prevented the complainant from taking the deceased to a hospital, discouraged informing the police and hurriedly cremated the body without post-mortem examination, thereby causing disappearance of evidence. The complainant initially stated that she had no suspicion due to mental shock and pressure, but subsequently alleged that, owing to financial disputes and other differences, Harikrishna had murdered one Nadavati Srihari (deceased) and 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7000 of 2026 Dated 01.09.2026 destroyed the evidence. Accordingly, the case was registered for investigation and necessary legal action. 3. Mr.Komara Prudhvi Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed any offence. He is law-abiding citizen. He is the sole earning member of the family. It is submitted that there is no direct or cogent evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged murder. He further submits that the allegations are based only on suspicion and subsequent statements of the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner himself surrendered on 11.07.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 52 days. He further submits that there was a delay of 24 days in lodging the FIR. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period and his further detention is not necessary. Therefore, the learned counsel prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposes the petition and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is submitted that the petitioner is prima facie connected with the alleged murder and disappearance of evidence. He further submits that the investigation is still in progress and 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7000 of 2026 Dated 01.09.2026 the material witnesses are yet to be examined. There is also a possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. Therefore, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr.V.Sai Sri Harsha, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant, submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature. It is submitted that the petitioner is directly involved in the murder of the deceased and in causing disappearance of the evidence. He further submits that the complainant initially gave a statement under mental shock and pressure exerted by the petitioner. The subsequent material and circumstances disclose the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 8. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7000 of 2026 Dated 01.09.2026 9. As seen from the record, the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.3. The petitioner was arrested on 11.07.2026 pursuant to his surrender before the Tahsildar, Buchireddypalem Mandal. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 52 days pursuant to his surrender on 11.07.2026. It is alleged that the petitioner, in conspiracy with the other accused, procured a poisonous injection and injected the poison into the body of the deceased in a Swift Dzire car, followed by disposal of the incriminating articles and subsequent destruction of evidence. In the course of investigation, under the cover of a seizure mahazar, certain material objects were traced and recovered at the instance of the petitioner and the other accused. The investigation is still in progress. Though there is a delay of 24 days in lodging the FIR with the police, the said delay has been explained in the FIR. The deceased is the husband of the de-facto complainant and Accused No.1 is the own brother of the de-facto complainant. The petitioner is alleged to have actively participated in the commission of the offence along with Accused No.1. Since some more material witnesses are yet to be examined and the investigation is still in progress, the request for enlarging the petitioner on bail at this juncture is not convincing and reasonable. 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7000 of 2026 Dated 01.09.2026 10. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, 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 petitioner on bail. 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: 01.09.2026 RSI 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7000 of 2026 Dated 01.09.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7000 of 2026 Date: 01.09.2026 RSI