APHC010436512026 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: 7236/2026 Between: 1. GEDNI NARESH, SO NARASAPPA ALIAS GEDNY NARASAPPA ALIAS GANDNY NARESHAGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,R/O. M.KONDAPURAM VILLAGE,KALYANADURGAM MANDAL,ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT - 515 751 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Through S.H.O, Kalyanadurgam Rural P.S, Anantapur District - 515 751. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), by the petitioner/Accused, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime 2 No.69 of 2026 of Kalyanadurgam Rural Police Station, Ananthapuram District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, during a quarrel, the accused took a beer bottle, broke it and attempted to stab the de facto complainant on his neck with the broken bottle. While the complainant managed to evade the attack, the blow landed on his right cheek, causing a severe bleeding injury. Hence, the present crime. 3. Ms.K.Sarita, learned counsel representing Mr.K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, has a fixed abode and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting pre- arrest bail. There is no incriminating material found against the petitioner. The petitioner will not abscond and fully co-operate with the investigation agency. 4. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposes the petition and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He submits that the investigation is still in progress and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary. He further submits that the allegations disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner and apprehends that, if granted pre-arrest bail, the petitioner may influence the witnesses or hamper the investigation. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the petition. 3 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1, has observed that while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to exercise its discretion judiciously, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The nature and gravity of the accusation, the precise role attributed to the applicant, the material collected during investigation, and the likelihood of the applicant interfering with the investigation are relevant considerations and has cautioned against importing rigid or inflexible conditions into the exercise of power relating to anticipatory bail. In terms of the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2 , the Court, while considering whether anticipatory bail ought to be granted or refused, is required to be guided, inter alia, by the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the applicant and the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. As seen from the record, there is a statement of the victim disclosing specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner. It is alleged that the Accused stabbed the de facto complainant with a broken beer bottle on his neck and also on his right cheek, causing severe bleeding injuries. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, as it would amount to giving a shield, protection or licence to the petitioner against whom specific allegations are leveled. 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 4 8. 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 petitioner/Accused No.1. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 07.09.2026 BMS