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.7 & 8 on bail in Cr.No.41 of 2025 of Vijayapuram Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS Act’).

2. Mr. Eerla Sateesh Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence. They are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have got fixed abode and are the sole breadwinners of their family. They are ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court deems fit to impose, by enlarging the petitioners on bail. They were arrested on 16.09.2025 and 06.09.2025 respectively. Ever since, they have been in judicial custody and it is urged to allow the petition.

3. Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that Accused Nos.4, 5, 6 and 9 are still absconding. The charge sheet was filed within the statutory period. There was a civil dispute between the deceased and the accused. As the accusation is well founded, it is urged to dismiss the petition.

4. Sri Jaya Prakash Madasu, the learned Counsel for respondent No.2, filed a counter denying the averments of the petitioners and urged to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petitioners are still threatening the de-facto complainant and other witnesses with dire consequences. On an earlier occasion also, the petitioners attacked the deceased and caused severe injuries, and it is urged to dismiss the petition.

5. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia((2020) 2 SCC 118) at paragraph Nos.23, 25 and 26, has held as under:

                  23.…The duty of judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment. Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are duty bound to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion.

                  25. Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind which may require the intervention of this Court. Where an earlier application for bail has been rejected, there is a higher burden on the appellate Court to furnish specific reasons as to why bail should be granted.

                  26. The perfunctory analysis by the High Court in the present case cannot be sustained. For the reasons indicated above, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court enlarging the first respondent on bail is set aside.

6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

7. Now the point for consideration is:

                  “Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?”

8. As seen from the record, this Court, in Crl.P.No.9027 of 2025, vide order dated 29.10.2025, dismissed the pre-arrest bail application filed by Accused Nos.6 to 9 in the instant case. Originally, the FIR was registered as a case of suspicious death. Later, it was altered to a case of murder. After thorough investigation, the charge sheet has been filed within the statutory period. There have been long-standing civil and criminal disputes between the de-facto complainant and Accused Nos.1 to 3. On an earlier occasion, at the behest of the deceased, a criminal case was registered against some of the accused on the ground that they admitted to do away with the life of the deceased. In the said case, petitioner No.2/Accused No.8 is shown as one of the accused. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were released on default bail by the learned Trial Court. Accused Nos.4, 5, 6 and 9 are still at large. Accused Nos.1 to 3 had allegedly executed the plan, while Accused Nos.4 to 9 conspired to do away the life of V.M. Venkatesan. On earlier occasions also, two attempts were made by the accused to kill the V.M.Venkatesan. Petitioner No.1/Accused No.7 was arrested on 16.09.2025. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.8 was arrested on 06.09.2025.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner No.1/Accused No.7, who is of an impressionable age of 23 years and who did not participate on any earlier occasion in Cr.No.47 of 2017, this Court is inclined to enlarge petitioner No.1/Accused No.7 on bail with the following stringent conditions:

                  i. The petitioner No.1/Accused No.7 shall be enlarged on bail subject to him executing 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 Magistrate of First Class, Nagari.

                  ii. The petitioner No.1/Accused No.7 shall appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every adjournment without fail.

                  iii. The petitioner No.1/Accused No.7 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the learned Trial Court concerned.

                  iv. The petitioner No.1/Accused No.7 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

                  v. The petitioner No.1/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. He shall not indulge in the commission of any offence while enlarged on bail. In the event of such an offence, the investigating officer is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

10. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against Petitioner No.2/Accused No.8, and in view of the earlier alleged attacks on the deceased by Petitioner No.2/Accused No.8 and another accused, and his complicity in this case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge Petitioner No.2/Accused No.8 on bail, as the accusation against Petitioner No.2/Accused No.8 is well-founded.

11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed, dismissing the petition insofar as Petitioner No.2/Accused No.8 is concerned, and allowing the petition in favour of Petitioner No.1/Accused No.7.