APHC010351142026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5655/2026 Between: 1. NITYA ALIAS GUMMALA NITYA PUOJAIAH, S/O LATE GUMMALA NAGAIAH,R/O DOOR NO. 14/74, PAATA KADAPA,Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT - 516002. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH RIMS U/G POLICE STATION, KADAPA DISTRICT,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,FLIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI. 2. KALAMALLA VENKATA DASTAGIRI, S/O PEDDA DASTAGIRI,AGED 17 YEARS, R/O D.NO.71/8, ALAKHANAPALLI,KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT - 516003. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6890/2026 Between: 1. PASUPULETI PAVAN KUMAR ALIAS PAVAN ALIAS SYCO PAVAN, S/O. PRABHAKAR, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.6/97,RAMACHANDRAPURPM VILLAGE, KAMALAPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTHCT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.5655 and 6890 of 2026 Dated 07.09.2026 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH RIMS U/G POLICE STATION, KADAPA DISTRICT,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,AMARAVATHI. 2. KALAMALLA VENKATA DASTAGIRI, S/O PEDDA DASTAGIRI,AGED 17 YEARS, R/O D.NO.71/8, ALAKHANAPALLI,KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT - 516003. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. RAJENDRA C Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as the Petitioners in the two petitions are different, but the crime registered against them is one and the same. 2. The Criminal Petition Nos.5655 and 6890 of 2026 have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.12 and 15 seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.45 of 2026 of RIMS U/G Police Station, Kadapa District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 118(1), 109(1) and 103(1) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.5655 and 6890 of 2026 Dated 07.09.2026 3. Sri Chandragiri Rajendra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the names of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.12 and 15 are not found in any of the prosecution records, including the FIR, remand report, and other proceedings. The Petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are the sole earning members of their families and that their arrest would cause undue hardship to their dependents. The Petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the Criminal Petitions. 4. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the investigation reveals that the Petitioners had facilitated the main accused in the commission of the murder of the deceased. The Petitioner/Accused No.15 had specifically provided the Royal Enfield motorcycle to the other accused for the commission of the offence. The number plate of the said Royal Enfield motorcycle was found in the office of the Petitioner/Accused No.15. Thus, the investigation conducted so far reveals that the Petitioners had actively participated in the commission of the offence and entered into a criminal conspiracy with the main accused, attracting the offence punishable under Section 61(2) of ‘the BNS.,’/Section 120-B of ‘the I.P.C’. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the alleged murder took place in the wee hours of the day, which indicates that the Petitioners had prior knowledge of the commission of the offence and 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.5655 and 6890 of 2026 Dated 07.09.2026 actively participated in the conspiracy with the main accused. The investigation is still at a progressing stage. Hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Petitions. 5. Sri P. Sasidhar Reddy, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners, contending that the investigation reveals the clear involvement of the Petitioners in the offence of murder, which is heinous in nature. The Petitioners are alleged to have conspired with the main accused and facilitated the commission of the murder. The learned Sessions Judge, on two occasions, dismissed the pre- arrest bail applications of the Petitioners vide orders dated 08.05.2026 and 18.06.2026. It is further submitted that, if the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, they may hamper the investigation and threaten the witnesses. Since the Petitioners are alleged to have committed heinous offences, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. Hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Petitions. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 7. On perusal of the record, at the outset, it has to be remembered that the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners is neither a licence for the commission of serious offences nor a shield or protection for having committed grave offences, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.5655 and 6890 of 2026 Dated 07.09.2026 Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2. There are nearly eight adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioner/Accused No.12, which have not been disclosed in the present Petition. 8. 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.,3 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. 9. The revised Standing Order No.282(1) of the High Court of the Andhra Pradesh stated in every application for bail presented to the High Court, the Petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, and if made shall state the result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 32026 SCC Online 188 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.5655 and 6890 of 2026 Dated 07.09.2026 application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information. 10. Of course, there are no similar adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioner/Accused No.15. The allegation levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.15 is that he provided a Royal Enfield motorcycle to the other accused for the commission of the offence. The number plate of the said Royal Enfield motorcycle was found in the office of the Petitioner/Accused No.15. The roles of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.12 and 15 came to light based on the confessions of Accused Nos.1 to 10. The investigation, thus, reveals that the Petitioners/Accused Nos.12 and 15 actively participated in the conspiracy to do away with the life of the deceased. There are no merits in the Criminal Petitions. Hence, the Criminal Petitions are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, this Criminal Petitions are dismissed. However, learned Counsel for the Petitioners urges this Court to pass an order directing the Petitioners to surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate. 12. This Court refers the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Chhawnika alias Om Prakash Chabnika alias Om Prakash Chawnika v. State of Jharkhand4, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to direct the accused to surrender before the Court and seek regular bail. In view of the law laid down in Om Prakash 4 2026 SCC OnLine SC 676 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.5655 and 6890 of 2026 Dated 07.09.2026 Chhawnika (supra), the request of learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be entertained. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 07.09.2026 KMS 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.5655 and 6890 of 2026 Dated 07.09.2026 180 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 5655 and 6890 of 2026 Date: 07.09.2026 KMS