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.8 on bail in Crime No.422 of 2025 of Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupathi District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.8 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

2. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that based on the confessions of Accused Nos.1 and 2, the present petitioner/Accused No.8 was arraigned as an accused. The petitioner is a habitual offender. There are two adverse criminal antecedents reported against the accused, namely Crime No.381 of 2024 of Alipiri Police Station under Sections 126(2), 78(1)(i), 79, and 351(2) of ‘the BNS’, and Crime No.06 of 2025 of Alipiri Police Station under Sections 126(2), 78(1)(i), 79, 351(2), 329(4), 115(2), 324(4) read with 3(5) of ‘the BNS’. It is further submitted that the injured suffered grievous injuries at the hands of the accused, and it is urged to dismiss the petition.

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

4. As seen from the record, the petitioner is at the impressionable age of 20 years and is a first-year M.B.A. student. The name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the F.I.R. However, his role came to light based on the statements of Accused Nos.1 and 2, who stated that the petitioner was also present at the time of the alleged offence. Nevertheless, no specific overt acts have been attributed to the petitioner by the de‑facto complainant. Accused No.1 was in love with one Charishma, whom the son of the de‑facto complainant also loved. Though the victim suffered grievous injuries, they were not at the hands of the petitioner, as no specific overt acts have been attributed to him. The petitioner was arrested on 21.09.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 62 days. Although there are two adverse antecedents reported against the accused, the petitioner/Accused No.8 is presumed innocent until his guilt is proved. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh((2020) 11 SCC 648), at paraNo.7, observed that mere pendency of criminal antecedents itself is not a ground to deny the request for grant of bail.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.8, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.8 on bail.

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

                  i. The Petitioner/Accused No.8 shall be enlarged on bail subject to him executing bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

                  ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.8 shall appear before the Station House Officer, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet.

                  iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.8 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.8 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

                  v. The Petitioner/Accused No.8 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.8 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.