The court denied anticipatory bail due to grave nature of allegations and potential risk to the investigation, emphasizing the necessity for preserving evidence and witness safety.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY a:£ >

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE o I'y \o V', Qm -U PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1172 OF 2025 Between:

Surasura Bhupal, S/o Surasura Ankanna Aged about 61yrs, Occ Coolie R/o H.No.8-65, Eswar Nagar Mahanandi village AND mandal Nandyal District ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer Mahanandi police station Nandyal District Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to direct the respondent to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 107/2024 on the file of the Mahanandi Police Station, Nandyal District in the interest of justice.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Public Prosecutor ^

NAGENDRA REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the oh'behalf of the Respondent The Court made the following:ORDER APHC010055522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3327]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION N0.1172 OF 2025 Between:

Surasura Bhupal ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1.P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/A1, seeking anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No.107 of 2024 of Mahanandi Police Station, Nandyal district^ registered for the offences punishable under Sections 331(6)

118(1), 324(4), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.08.2024 afternoon, while the de facto complainant along with his elder brother namely Venkateswarlu was taking tea in Challa Naidu’s hotel of Eswar Nagar colony, Mahanandi village, A1 came in a drunken state and stated to Venkateswarlu that the de facto complainant was responsible for catching hold of him by the forest officials for killing of ‘Karti’ and so saying A1 picked up a galata with Venkateswarlu and came upon him with a knife with an intention to hack him, for which when the said Venkateswarlu kept his left hand across, he received bleeding injuries on his little finger. At that time, the de facto complainant and others intervened and rescued Venkateswarlu.

On the same day, at about 10.55 PM, while the de facto complainant was in the house A2 to A5 armed with sticks, trespassed into his house by breaking the doors of the house and among them A3 and A4 caught hold of the hands of the de facto complainant and A2 and A5 beat him with sticks causing swelling injuries on his right hand, dumb injuries on his back and the back side of head. When his brother Venkateswarlu came to rescue the de facto complainant, A2 and A5 pushed him on the ground and A3 and A4 beat him with sticks on his back causing dumb injuries and damaged his Bolero Car with sticks and stones. A2 to A5 also threatened them with dire consequences, if they reveal the incident to anyone.

4. A perusal of the material on record, prima facie, goes, [3. Heard. Perused the record.] show that there are specific accusations against the accused that they attacked the de facto complainant and his brother Venkateswarlu and caused bleeding injuries to them. The accusation against A1 is that he tried to hack the brother of the de facto complaint namely Venkateswarlu w