APHC010383062026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6211/2026 Between: CHALLA SHANKAR ALIAS CHARAN, S/O VENKATESH, AGE 26 YEARS, R/O.C.V. KANDRIGA VILLAGE, THOTTEMBEDU MANDAI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE, Represented by the Public Prosecutor for High Court of A.P through Station House Officer, Venkatagiri PS, Tirupati District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: TORATI SHANMUKHA PRASANNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6211 of 2026 Dated 09.09.2026 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.1, seeking grant of bail in S.C.No.94 of 2025 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District, arising out of Crime No.165 of 2023 of Venkatagiri Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC’). 2. Mr.T.Shanmukha Prasanna, 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 a law-abiding citizen and the sole earning member of his family. It is further submitted that there are no other cases pending against the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while enlarging him on bail. Hence, learned counsel prays that the Criminal Petition may be allowed. 3. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposes the petition and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is submitted that the investigation is still in progress and the material witnesses are yet to be examined. There is also a 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6211 of 2026 Dated 09.09.2026 possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence if he is released on bail. Therefore, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. Thoughtful consideration has been bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. The entire record has been perused. 6. Now, the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail?” 7. As seen from the record, the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudur, vide order dated 15.06.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.212 of 2026, dismissed the application filed under Section 483 of ‘the BNSS’ seeking grant of bail in connection with S.C.No.94 of 2025 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of ‘the IPC’. The mother of the informant is alleged to have developed illicit intimacy with the petitioner/Accused No.1, and the petitioner is alleged to have murdered her father. On the report lodged by the informant, a case for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of ‘the IPC.,’ was registered. 8. As seen from the impugned order, the petitioner failed to appear before the learned Trial Court and cooperate with the trial proceedings. 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6211 of 2026 Dated 09.09.2026 Consequently, the learned Trial Court was constrained to issue a Non- Bailable Warrant (NBW) against the petitioner on 24.12.2025. However, the said NBW could not be executed. The petitioner is facing a grave charge under Section 302 of ‘the IPC’. 9. Having regard to his previous non-appearance before the learned Trial Court and failure to cooperate with the trial proceedings, there is a likelihood that, if enlarged on bail, he may not appear before the learned Trial Court and cooperate with the trial, thereby causing impediment to the smooth conduct of the trial. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court was justified in dismissing the bail application. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail at this juncture. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 176 days, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 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: 09.09.2026 RSI 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6211 of 2026 Dated 09.09.2026 51 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6211 of 2026 Date: 09.09.2026 RSI