logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1873 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 7983 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Parties : Pattapu Yesubabu Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Public Prosecutor, Amaravati & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: P.V.S.K. Chakravarthy, Advocate. For the Respondent: Sambhu Prasad Pedireddi, Garugu N V Durga Sai Ekambaram, Public Prosecutor, K. Muni Reddy Bala Prasad, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 07-10-2026
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 109(1), 118(1), 115(2), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023

2. Catch Words:
pre‑arrest bail, investigation, abscond, bond, sureties, witness tampering, conditions of bail

3. Summary:
The Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the BNSS seeks pre‑arrest bail for accused No. 5 in Crime 159 of 2026. The petitioner claims innocence, hardship to dependents, and offers to comply with any conditions. The prosecution opposes bail, citing ongoing investigation and risk of absconding. The court notes that the alleged injuries are simple and, after weighing the facts, deems it appropriate to grant bail with stringent conditions, including a bond, regular police reporting, restriction on leaving the state, and non‑interference with witnesses.

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’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.5 on pre-arrest bail in Crime No.159 of 2026 of Narsaraopet Rural Police Station, Palnadu District, registered against the petitioner/accused No.5 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 115(2), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

2. Sri P.V.S.K.Chakravarthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the case and that petitioner has not committed any offence; Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen; Petitioner is sole earning member of the family and if the petitioner is arrested, it would cause hardship to his dependents; Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, the 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 granted pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, 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, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsels for respondent No.2 to 4. Perused the record.

5. The petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.5 in the above mentioned crime. He belongs to Madiga (SC) Community as per the copy of the Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate dated 09.05.2025, issued by the Tahsildar, Narsaraopeta Mandal. The allegation against the petitioner/ No.5 is that the he bet one Mr.Mucchu Veeriah on his back with a stick on 29.06.2026 at about 03:30PM. There is allegedly another incident reported at about 6:45 PM and in that incident, it is alleged that the de-facto complainant suffered some injuries not in the hands of the petitioner. With regard to the alleged incident, Mr.Mucchu Veeriah has not submitted any complaint to the police concerned. Even as per the allegation against the petitioner, the injuries sustained by Mr.Mucchu Veeriah in the hands of petitioner/accused No.5 are simple in nature.

6. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners/accused No.5, and taking in view that even as per the allegations against the petitioner/accused No.5, the nature of injuries sustained by the victim are simple in nature, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/accused No.5 with some stringent conditions.

7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions:

                  i. In the event of arrest, petitioner/accused No.5 shall be enlarged on bail subject to executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials.

                  ii. The petitioner/accused No.5 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required.

                  iii. The petitioner/accused No.5 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses.

                  iv. The petitioner/accused No.5 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.5 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.5 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.5 shall surrender his passports, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit affidavits to that effect to the Investigating Officer.

 
  CDJLawJournal