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.3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.22 of 2026 of Mydukur Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 118(1) read with 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “the BNS‟).

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 03.02.2026 at about 1:30 p.m., near the Masjid on Badvel Road, Mydukur, the de facto complainant demanded payment of the chit amount due to his wife from accused Chand Basha. Enraged, Chand Basha allegedly abused the complainant, picked up a stone, and threw it at his left leg, causing a swelling injury. Thereafter, the other accused, namely Shoukath Ali, Kareemun, and Venkata Subbaiah, allegedly joined him, pushed the complainant to the ground, and assaulted him with hands and legs. The complainant received treatment at the Government Hospital, Proddatur, and thereafter lodged a report with the police on 05.02.2026.

CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

3. Sri V. Nitesh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner/Accused No.3 is innocent and has been falsely implicated with a mala fide intention, despite there being no specific overt act attributed to her in the complaint. It is contended that the investigation is substantially complete, all material witnesses have been examined, medical reports have been received, and only the filing of the charge sheet remains, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a homemaker with permanent residence, has deep roots in society, and is the sole caregiver for six dependent children, and therefore there is no possibility of her absconding or tampering with the evidence. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. It is lastly submitted that although her earlier anticipatory bail application was dismissed while the investigation was pending, the present application deserves consideration in view of the subsequent progress in the investigation and the changed circumstances.

ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:

4. Per contra, Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners are imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that they may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that there are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner that the Petitioner with other accused came and beat the de-facto complainant with hand and legs and caused injuries and it is urged that the instant bail application be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:

6. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:

               “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?”

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:

7. As seen from the record, this is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner. Earlier, the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.1418 of 2026 seeking pre-arrest bail. By order dated 07.03.2026, this Court disposed of the said petition directing the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of “the BNSS.,‟ and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. Subsequently, in the course of investigation, Section 118(2) of “the BNSS.,‟ was added. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, which came to be dismissed.

8. Coming to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the allegations levelled against the Petitioner by the de-facto complainant, it is evident that the specific allegation of causing injury is against Accused No.1, namely Chand Basha, who is alleged to have abused the de-facto complainant in filthy language and thrown a stone at his left leg, resulting in a grievous injury. Insofar as the present Petitioner is concerned, the only allegation is that he, along with two other accused, assaulted the de-facto complainant with their hands and legs. There is no allegation that the Petitioner caused the grievous injury attributed to Accused No.1.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.3, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.3.

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

               i. In the event of arrest, Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials.

               ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall make herself available for investigation as and when required.

               iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses.

               iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 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.3 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

               vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall surrender her passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If she claims that she does not have passport, she shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.