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 Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.76 of 2026 of Mudivedu Police Station, Annamayya District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 109(1), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused/A-1, whose agricultural land is adjacent to that of the complainant, allowed his cows to enter and graze in the complainant’s sorghum crop. When the complainant and his son/injured questioned A-1 about the same, he abused and threatened them with dire consequences. Subsequently, while the injured was cultivating his land, A-1 picked up a quarrel with him and attempted to assault him with a knife with an intention to kill him. On hearing the cries of the injured, the complainant and others rushed to the spot, removed the knife from A-1 and prevented further assault. Though the village elders conducted a panchayat and advised A-1 not to repeat such acts, the complainant thereafter lodged a report with the police.

3. Mr. N. Aswartha Narayana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is the sole earning member of his family. He is a law-abiding citizen. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false and baseless and arose out of a previous dispute between the parties. It is submitted that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cause the death of the injured.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the alleged incident was not witnessed by any independent person and that the prosecution case is based mainly on the statements of interested witnesses. The petitioner undertakes 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.

5. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposes the petition and submits that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner, armed with a knife, attempted to assault the injured with an intention to cause his death. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the statements of the complainant and other witnesses support the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the petitioner may threaten or influence the witnesses if released on bail. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

6. Mr.T.Shanmukha Prasanna, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2 concurs with the submissions of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and submits that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature and are supported by the statements of the complainant and other witnesses. It is submitted that the petitioner, armed with a knife, attempted to assault the injured with an intention to cause his death. The learned counsel further submits that there is sufficient prima facie material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is also submitted that there is a likelihood of the petitioner threatening or influencing the witnesses if released on bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

8. As seen from the record, on an earlier occasion, the son of the de-facto complainant was allegedly attempted to be attacked by the petitioner with a knife; however, the incident was averted with the intervention of others. The injuries sustained by the son of the de-facto complainant are simple in nature, as per the wound certificate issued by the Medical Officer. The petitioner was arrested on 22.06.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 57 days. So far, only nine witnesses have been examined, all of whom are official witnesses. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Nandireddypalli Village, Annamayya District, and has got fixed abode. The material portion of the investigation with regard to the alleged role played by the petitioner has been completed.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.1, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail with some stringent conditions.

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

                  i. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.

                  ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 01:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet.

                  iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

                  iv. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not enter Nandireddypalli Village until the examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, namely, the victim and the de-facto complainant.

                  v. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

                  vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.

                  vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 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.