APHC010442172026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7347/2026 Between: 1. CHANDRAGIRI MARESWARARAO, S/O VENKANNA, R/OREDDIGUDEM VILLAGE, REDDIGUDEM MANDAL,N.T.R DISTRICT, A.P. 2. DERANGULA KIRAN, S/O. S/O MARESWARARAO,R/O. REDDIGUDEM VILLAGE, REDDIGUDEM MANDAL,N.T.R DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court Buildings, Amaravathi,Through Reddigudem Police Station. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): SRI SARAN VANKAYALA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7347 of 2026 Dated 02.09.2026 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 petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.76 of 2026 of Reddigudem Police Station, NTR District, was registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 109(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Mr. Sai Saran V., the learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence. They are law-abiding citizens and have not committed any offence. They are the sole breadwinners of their respective families. It is further submitted that the de-facto complainant and the accused belong to the same political party and that no specific accusations have been levelled against the Petitioners by the de-facto complainant. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 have already been enlarged on regular bail. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that Accused No.5 filed Crl.P.No.5010 of 2026, wherein, vide order dated 30.06.2026, a learned coordinate Bench of this Court directed the police not to take any coercive steps against him. The Petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7347 of 2026 Dated 02.09.2026 submissions, the learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that, if the Petitioners are released on pre- arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood of their absconding, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. It is further submitted that specific overt acts are attributed to the Petitioners, inasmuch as they caused injuries to L.W.2 and damaged the vehicle of the victim. There are four adverse antecedents reported against Petitioner/Accused No.4. Hence, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the Petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos.3 and 4. There are four adverse antecedents reported against Petitioner/Accused No.4. However, the same have not been disclosed in the present petition. Out of the said four cases, one case was settled before the Lok Adalat and another case ended in conviction against the Petitioner for an offence under the Gaming Act. The remaining two cases are pending against the Petitioners. 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7347 of 2026 Dated 02.09.2026 7. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.,1 wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 47 and 48, it was observed that bail applications are often considered on the basis of prima facie material placed before the Court at different stages of the proceedings. The Court held that non-disclosure of material facts, such as criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, custody period, and the stage of trial, may result in an erroneous grant or refusal of bail. It was further held that every bail applicant is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and any coercive processes pending against him, duly supported by an affidavit. Such disclosure is necessary to ensure transparency, uniformity, and integrity in bail adjudication. 8. The allegation against the Petitioners is that the Petitioners, along with Accused No.5, chased the de-facto complainant on motorcycles while armed with rods and other weapons. It is alleged that they caused injuries to L.W.2 and also damaged the vehicle of the victim. 9. In view of the specific overt acts attributed to the Petitioners and the injuries allegedly caused to the victim, this Court is not inclined to grant pre- arrest bail to the Petitioner, as it would amount to extending a shield, protection, or licence to the Petitioner against whom serious allegations relating to the attack on the victim have been made, as per the judgments of 12026 SCC Online 188 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7347 of 2026 Dated 02.09.2026 the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab2 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)3. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition, and the same 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: 02.09.2026 RSI 2(1980) 2 SCC 565 (2020) 5 SCC 1 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7347 of 2026 Dated 02.09.2026 10 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7347 of 2026 Date: 02.09.2026 RSI