logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1443 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 6466 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Parties : K. Dinesh Kumar Reddy alias K Dinesh Reddy & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Station House Officer, Yadiki Police Station, Ananthapuramu
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: P. Madhukar Reddy, 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.78 of 2022 of Yadiki Police Station, Ananthapuramu District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Sri P. Madhukar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioners are willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He, therefore, prayed to allow the petition and grant anticipatory bail.

3. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the petition and submitted that, if the Petitioners/Accused are granted anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood of their committing similar offences and hampering the investigation. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

5. On a perusal of the record, it appears that the crime was registered in the year 2022 as Crime No.78 of 2022. The charge sheet was filed against Accused No.2 alone. Insofar as Accused Nos.1 and 3 are concerned, it was stated in the charge sheet that no case was made out against them. Challenging the non-arraignment of the petitioners as accused, the de-facto complainant filed a protest petition. The case is now pending at the PRC stage.

6. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not warranted at this stage. The apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioners may hamper the investigation or commit similar offences can be adequately addressed by imposing appropriate conditions.

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

                  i. In the event of their arrest, the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials;

                  ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required;

                  iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;

                  iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court.

                  vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 shall surrender their passport to the Investigating Officer, if they states that they does not have passport, the Petitioners shall submit an affidavit to that effect.
 
  CDJLawJournal