| |
CDJ 2026 APHC 1474
|
| Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Case No : Criminal Petition No. 5609 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO |
| Parties : Mungi Ganga Raju Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Its Public Prosecutor, Amaravathi & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: A.K. Kishore Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondent: Koduru Bujji Babu, Public Prosecutor, Legal Aid. |
| Date of Judgment : 10-08-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Sections 329(4), 115(2), 351(2), 140(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
2. Catch Words:
pre‑arrest bail, bail, investigation, material witnesses, abscond, bond, sureties, threat, inducement, prosecution witnesses, charge sheet, State of Andhra Pradesh
3. Summary:
The petitioner, accused No.9, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the BNSS seeking pre‑arrest bail for alleged offences under the BNS. Counsel argued the petitioner’s innocence, sole‑breadwinner status, and willingness to comply with conditions. The prosecution and the de‑facto complainant opposed bail, citing ongoing investigation, risk of absconding, and potential witness tampering. The court noted that the petitioner was not originally named in the FIR but was later implicated through a remand report. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s role, the court granted pre‑arrest bail with stringent conditions including bond, regular appearance before police, and restrictions on movement and witness influence. The petition was consequently allowed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/Accused No.9 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.76 of 2026 of Rangampeta Police Station, East Godavari District, was registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 329(4), 115(2), 351(2), 140(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).
2. Mr.A.K.Kishore Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his 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.A.Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. Hence, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.
4. Mr.Koduru Bujji Babu, the learned Legal Aid Counsel, appearing for Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner. It is submitted that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner are serious in nature and the investigation is still in progress. It is further submitted that there is a likelihood of the Petitioner influencing or threatening the de-facto complainant and other material witnesses. Hence, the learned counsel prays that the petition be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.
6. As seen from the record, the Petitioner/Accused No.9 was not figured as one of the accused in the FIR lodged by Respondent No.2. However, in the remand report pertaining to Accused Nos.1 and 2, the name of the Petitioner/Accused No.9 came to light in connection with the Cooperative Elections, and an FIR was registered. The Petitioner is a practising Advocate at Rangampeta, East Godavari District. Accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 have already been enlarged on regular bail.
7. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations leveled against the petitioner/Accused No.9, the alleged role played by him in this case, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.9 with the following conditions:
8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions:
i. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner/Accused No.9 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials;
ii. The petitioner/Accused No.9 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required;
iii. The petitioner/Accused No.9 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses
iv. The petitioner/Accused No.9 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.
v. The petitioner/Accused No.9 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.
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.
|
| |
