logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1442 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 6188 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Parties : Boyina Mohan Krishna Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, through SHO. Chirala Rural Epurupalem 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 : 06-08-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 -
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.1 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 333 and 118(1) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.05.2026 at about 7:15 PM, the de-facto complainant/Jangili Suresh Babu, while at his home in Boyinavaripalem Village, was attacked by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 along with Accused No.2/Srinivasarao, Accused No.3/Jangila Nagaraju and others. It is alleged that the Petitioner struck him on the head with a stick causing a bleeding injury, while Accused No.2 assaulted him on the hand resulting in another wound. When his sister Subbayamma, brother-in-law Nageswara Rao and nephew Jagadish intervened, they too were beaten with sticks, sustaining bleeding and swollen injuries. The injured were taken to the Government Hospital at Chirala and thereafter lodged a report, leading to registration of the case in Cr.No.99 of 2026 of Chirala Rural (Epurupalem) Police Station, Bapatla District.

3. Sri Ch. Vidyasagar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and 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. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition.

4. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, 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 anticipatory 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 to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

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

6. On perusal of the record, the allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is that he beat the de-facto complainant on the head with a stick, thereby causing a bleeding injury. The Petitioner 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 is a case and counter-case. This Court in Crl.P.No.6228 of 2026 vide order dated 05.08.2026 dismissed the petition for grant of anticipatory bail to Accused No.2 on the ground that there were specific overt acts attributed against him and granted anticipatory bail to Accused No.3 in this crime.

7. Having regard to the gravity and nature of the allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.1, and in view of the specific overt acts attributed against him, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail as it would amount to granting protection or shield to the person against whom specific allegations are leveled, 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/Accused No.1 deserves to be dismissed.

8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
 
  CDJLawJournal