logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1379 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 5853 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Parties : Gangulakunta Nagi Reddy & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: P. Madhukar Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 30-07-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 480 & 483 -
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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 on bail in Crime No.69 of 2026 of Rapthadu Police Station, Ananthapuram District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 109(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

2. Mr.P.Madhukar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the sole earning members of the family and, therefore, their incarceration would cause undue hardship to their dependents. They are law-abiding citizens. The petitioners undertake 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 Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners and submitted that, though the charge sheet has already been filed, the accusations against the petitioners are well founded. Hence, he prayed that the Criminal Petition be dismissed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

5. As seen from the record, the petitioners were arrested on 17.06.2026 and have been in judicial custody for the past 54 days. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed. Accused Nos.4 and 5 have been deleted from the array of accused in the FIR. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 3. Accused Nos.1 and 3 are aged about 67 years. The victim has not suffered any grievous injury. Of course, it is alleged that an axe was used to cause a head injury. There are no similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioners.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 on bail with some stringent conditions.

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

                  i. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

                  ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every adjournment without fail and cooperate for the expeditious completion of the trial.

                  iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

                  vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 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.
 
  CDJLawJournal