logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1571 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 6624 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Parties : Chirri Ashok Ashok Kumar & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Amaravati
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Venkat Challa, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 19-08-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 140(2), 127(2), 118(2), 351(3) read with 3(5) -
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.3, 4 and 7 on bail in Crime No.98 of 2026 of Koyyalagudem Police Station, Eluru District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3, 4 and 7 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 140(2), 127(2), 118(2), 351(3) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

2. Mr.Venkat Challa, 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 Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of 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 bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the 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 are arraigned as Accused Nos.3, 4 and 7. The petitioners have been in judicial custody for the past 36 days pursuant to their arrest on 14.07.2026. The allegations are primarily against Accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.1 is alleged to have beaten the de-facto complainant with an iron rod. Initially, an application was filed seeking custodial interrogation, which was allowed, granting one day for their interrogation. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has renewed the application seeking further time for interrogation, but the said application is yet to be numbered. Accused No.8 has been granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Court concerned. The de-facto complainant is alleged to have sustained grievous injuries at the hands of the accused.

6. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4, this Court is not inclined to enlarge them on bail at this stage. Hence, the petition insofar as the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 is concerned, is dismissed.

7. With regard to the alleged role of the petitioner/Accused No.7, who is the owner of the car in which the de-facto complainant was allegedly abducted and subjected to torture, the statement of the de-facto complainant does not disclose that Accused No.7 drove the car. Further, there are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed to the petitioner/Accused No.7.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.7, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.7 on bail, subject to the following conditions:

                  i. The Petitioner/Accused No.7 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate (Junior Division), Jangareddigudem.

                  ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.7 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet.

                  iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.7 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

                  iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.7 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence while on bail.

                  v. The Petitioner/Accused No.7 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.

                  vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.7 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.

9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed.
 
  CDJLawJournal