APHC010453312026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7541/2026 Between: 1. PATHAN ISRAN ALIAS DESHMUKH ISRAN ALI KHAN, S/O DESHMUKH FARHAN ALI KHAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,R/O 64/88, BANDLAPENTA, RAYACHOTY MUNICIPALITY AREA,ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 2. ZAHID ALIAS SHAIK JAHEED, S/O ALTHAF,AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, D.NO. 29/150, BETHAL COLONY,RAYACHOTY MUNICIPALITY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public ProsecutorHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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 No.3 and 6 for granting of pre- arrest bail in connection with Crime No.101 of 2026 of Rayachoty Urban Police Station, Annamayya District, was registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 109, 126(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Mr. Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are the innocent of the alleged offence. They are law-abiding citizens. They have not committed any offence. They are sole breadwinners of the family. The petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 3. 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 that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. There are six adverse antecedents reported against the Accused No.3 and three adverse antecedents reported against the Accused No.6. Hence, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. As seen from the record, the petitioners are arrayed as Accused No.3 & 6 in Crime No.101 of 2026 on the file of Rayachoty Urban Police Station, Annamayya District. There are six adverse antecedents reported against the Accused No.3 and three adverse antecedents reported against the Accused No.6. Suppressing all these antecedents pending against the petitioners, they have approached this Court seeking pre-arrest bail. 6. 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 12026 SCC Online 188 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. 7. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were enlarged on bail by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoty, vide order dated 30.04.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.30 of 2026 in Cr.No.101 of 2026 of Rayachoty U/G Police Station. The allegations against the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 6 are that LW1 was caught hold by Accused Nos. 5 and 6, while LW2 was stabbed by Accused No.3/Petitioner No.1. Though the injuries sustained by LW2 are simple in nature, specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. 8. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, as it would amount to giving a shield, or protection or license to the petitioners against whom specific and serious allegations have been made, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab2 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)3. 9. 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 No.3 and 6. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. 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: 08.09.2026 ANS 2(1980) 2 SCC 565 (2020) 5 SCC 1 181 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7541 of 2026 Date: 08.09.2026 ANS