| |
CDJ 2026 APHC 1073
|
| Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Case No : Criminal Petition No. 4512 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO |
| Parties : Adimoolapu Venkata Narendra Alias Narendra Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep By Its Public Prosecutor, Amaravati |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: D. Purnachandra Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor. |
| Date of Judgment : 29-06-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 480 & 483 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Sections 191(2), 191(3), 118(1), 109(1) and 103(1) read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
2. Catch Words:
- bail
- investigation
- witnesses
- absconding
- stringent conditions
3. Summary:
The Criminal Petition under the BNSS seeks bail for the petitioner, accused No.9, in a case involving serious offences under the BNS. The petitioner claims innocence and hardship, while the prosecution argues that the investigation is ongoing and the petitioner may abscond. The court notes that a substantial part of the investigation is complete, the petitioner has a fixed residence, and other co‑accused have already been bailed. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the petitioner’s circumstances, the court decides to grant bail with strict conditions to ensure cooperation and prevent tampering with evidence. The bail order includes a bond, regular reporting to the SHO, travel restrictions, non‑commission of offences, cooperation with investigators, and surrender of passport.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.9 on bail in Crime No.45 of 2026 of RIMS Urban Police Station, Y.S.R.Kadapa, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 118(1), 109(1) and 103(1) read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’).
2. Mr. D. Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is the sole bread winner of his family and, therefore, his continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes 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.P.Somayaji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still in progress and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood of his absconding, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
5. On perusal of the record, the Petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No.9. He was arrested on 18.04.2026. He has been in judicial custody for the past 72 days. Accused Nos.8, 11, and 13 have already been enlarged on bail by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences against Women-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa, vide order dated 08.05.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.182 of 2026. The main allegation is against Accused Nos.1 to 6 and 10, who are alleged to have caused the death of Chinna Dastagiri. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he arranged a vehicle to facilitate the principal offenders in escaping from the clutches of law. So far, 23 witnesses have been examined. The role of the Petitioner has come to light based on the confession of Accused Nos.1 and 2. With regard to the alleged role played by the Petitioner, a substantial portion of the investigation has been completed. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of Mutharasupalle, Chinnachowk, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. He has a fixed abode. If the Petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions, there is no likelihood of his threatening the witnesses or hampering the investigation.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.9, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.9 on bail with some stringent conditions.
7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions:
i. The Petitioner/Accused No.9 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa.
ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.9 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet.
iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.9 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.
iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.9 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.
v. The Petitioner/Accused No.9 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.
vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.9 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court.
vii. The petitioner/Accused No.9 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.
|
| |
