logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1426 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 6228 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Parties : Boyina Srinivasa Rao Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: CH. Vidyasagar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 05-08-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 329(4) & 118(1) read with 3(5) -
Judgment :-

1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.99 of 2026 of Chirala Rural (Epurupalem) Police Station, Bapatla District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329(4) and 118(1) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

2. Sri CH. Vidyasagar, 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 their family and, therefore, their incarceration would cause undue hardship to their dependents. The Petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition.

3. Per contra, Mr.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioners are released on anticipatory bail, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

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

5. As seen from the record, specific overt acts are attributed to Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2, whereas the allegations levelled against Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 are omnibus in nature. It is pertinent to note that Accused No.1 in the present case, i.e., Crime No.99 of 2026, had also lodged a complaint against the de-facto complainant and some others, which was registered as Crime No.100 of 2026. In Crime No.100 of 2026, Accused No.1 sustained bleeding injuries, and his grandmother also sustained injuries. Thus, it appears that the present case and Crime No.100 of 2026 constitute a case and counter-case.

6. Having regard to the gravity and nature of the allegations against Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2, and in view of the specific allegations and overt acts attributed to him, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail as it would amount to granting protection or shield to the persons against whom specific allegations are levelled, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab ((1980) 2 SCC 565) and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) ((2020) 5 SCC 1) . Hence, the request for grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 is dismissed.

7. Insofar as Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 is concerned, as noted supra, the allegations levelled against him are bald and omnibus in nature. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the gravity and nature of the allegations, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3.

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

                  i. In the event of his arrest, the Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials;

                  ii. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required;

                  iii. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;

                  iv. Petitioner No.2/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. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

                  vi. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.
 
  CDJLawJournal