Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11234
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J
N. RAMACHANDRA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7324/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C SUBODH
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Court denied anticipatory bail due to serious ongoing allegations and incomplete investigations.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Anticipatory bail - The petition was filed seeking anticipatory bail in light of allegations related to attempted rape and violent acts against the Petitioner. The court observed that the investigation was pending, and substantial allegations remained against the Petitioner, leading to dismissal of the petition. (Paras 2, 7)
(B) Nature of Offense - The nature and gravity of the allegations against the Petitioner were serious enough to warrant denial of bail. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner faced accusations involving attempted rape and physical assault stemming from ongoing land disputes, with allegations made by the De facto Complainant. Police had refused to file the Petitioner’s complaint following an incident where he was attacked by relatives of the complainant.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the ongoing investigation and the serious nature of the allegations did not support the grant of anticipatory bail.
Issues: The main issue involved whether anticipatory bail should be granted considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that without completion of the investigation and given the serious allegations, it was not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail, hence the petition was dismissed.
Result: Criminal Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed for anticipatory bail under relevant sections. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations of violence and false charges presented. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. court weighs allegations against the petitioner. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. final decision on bail petition rendered. (Para 8) |
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 1 has been filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/Accused in connection with Crime No.128 of 2024 on the file of Kothacheruvu Urban Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, which was For short ‘ BNSS ’
registered for the offences under Sections 64 read with 62, 118(2) and 351(3)
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 2
2. Previously this petition was filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail, wherein, at the time of hearing, it was represented by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that Section 482 of BNS S has no application for the offence under Section 64 of BNS which is punishable under Section 65 of BNS . Considering the said submission, this Court dismissed the petition vide Order dated 03.12.2024 on the ground of non-applicability of Section 482 of BNS S for the offence under Section 64 of BNS . However, as Section 64 of BNS is not punishable under Section 65 of BNS and they both are distinct offences, the Petitioner has come up with an application in I.A.No.1 of 2025 under the caption “for being mentioned” seeking to decide the application for grant of bail on merits. In that view, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is allowed and the present petition is taken up afresh.
3. Heard Sri C.Subodh, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that in view of the land disputes between the Petitioner and the De facto Complainant and his relatives, the Petitioner was caught on road, was tied to a pole and was beaten by them. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner sustained injuries and was admitted in the hospital and the Police refused to For short ‘ BNS ’
take the complaint given by the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that, these are case and counter and a false case has been registered against the Petitioner. Learned counsel finally prays to allow the petition by granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are grave allegations against the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. It is further submitted that, so far, five witnesses have been examined. It is submitted that specific allegations are made against the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences and material part of investigation is pending in the present crime. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. It is alleged against the Petitioner that in view of the disputes between the family of the De facto Complainant and the Petitioner, on 29.09.2024 at about 12.00 noon, while she was grazing her cattle, Petitioner attempted rape on her and threatened to kill her. She beat the Petitioner with a stone and escaped from his clutches. The Petitioner also beat the brother of the De facto complainant with a stone and caused bleeding injury.
7. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, the investigation has not been completed. In the light of the nature and gravity of the offences and the allegations made against the Petitioner, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.
8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to surrender before the concerned Court and move an application for regular bail and on the said application learned Judge may take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
