Common Order

1. 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. These two Criminal Petitions have been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 9 on bail in Crime No.76 of 2025 of Rapthadu Police Station, Ananthapuramu District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 9 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 109, 103 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.05.2025, at about 9:30 A.M., in the agricultural fields of Gangulakunta Village, Rapthadu Mandal, the accused persons, owing to a land dispute relating to the survey numbers, allegedly attacked the deceased, Chigicherla Narayanareddy, and his wife, Mutyalamma, with sickles, causing grievous bleeding injuries. It is alleged that Mutyalamma died on the spot, while Narayanareddy succumbed to his injuries during treatment at GGH, Ananthapuramu, on the same day at about 12:50 P.M. Based on the complaint lodged by Chigicherla Pradeep Kumar Reddy, a case was registered against the petitioners herein and the other accused.

4. Heard Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. Ayesha Azma, the learned counsel for Accused No.2, and Sri P. Madhukar Reddy, learned counsel for the Accused No.9, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated in the case due to longstanding land disputes between the parties. It is further submitted that no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. He further submits that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. The petitioners are in judicial custody, and their further detention is not required. Except the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 9, all the other accused have already been enlarged on bail. The petitioners are the sole earning members of the family. The petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged that the petitioners be enlarged on bail.

6. Per contra, Mr. Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners and submitted that the charge sheet had already been filed on 07.10.2025. He further submitted that the case pertains to a double murder and that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners cannot claim parity with the co-accused who were granted bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

7. On the other hand, Mr.K.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners and submitted that the case pertains to a double murder and that specific overt acts have been attributed to the petitioners. He further submitted that the prosecution has collected sufficient material establishing the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the offence and that the trial is presently in progress. It is further submitted that, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they are likely to influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses and thereby hamper the fair conduct of the trial. Hence, he prayed that the bail petition be dismissed.

8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

9. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions advanced by the learned counsel on both sides, the point that arises for consideration is:

               "Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?"

10. As seen from the record, the petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.2 and 9. After thorough investigation, the police have already filed the charge sheet. It is not in dispute that all the other accused, except the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 9, have already been enlarged on bail. The petitioner/Accused No.2 was arrested on 12.09.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 295 days. The petitioner/Accused No.9 was arrested on 13.09.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 296 days. Therefore, the petitioners are no longer required for the purpose of investigation, and their release would not hamper the trial in any manner. The petitioners are permanent residents of Rapthadu Village, Ananthapuramu District. They have got fixed abode.

11. This Court, vide order dated 22.05.2026 in Crl.P.No.4468 of 2026, enlarged Accused No.3 on bail subject to certain stringent conditions. The present petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 9 are also standing on the same footing. Therefore, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, subject to some stringent conditions, the interests of justice would be sub-served. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 apprehends that, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may cause harm to respondent No.2. However, the said apprehension can be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 9, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 9 on bail with some stringent conditions.

13. In the result, these two Criminal Petitions are allowed with the following stringent conditions:

               i. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 9 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile Court), Ananthapuramu.

               ii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 9 shall appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every adjournment without fail.

               iii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 9 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

               iv. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 9 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

               v. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 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.

               vi. In the event of any violation of the conditions, it is open to the prosecution or respondent No. 2 to file an application for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.