THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12463/2025

ORDER:

Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 for grant pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.159 of 2025 of Narsipatnam Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 109(1) and 118 (1) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

2. Sri Singuru Mohan Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Singuru Sai Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in this case. They are the sole breadwinners of their families and are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. If they are enlarged on pre- arrest bail, they would scrupulously comply with all conditions. It is submitted that the investigation in this case is almost completed and no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. The de-facto complainant himself is a rowdy-sheeter involved in 16 cases, and due to the animosity between the petitioners and the de facto complainant, they have been falsely implicated. The petitioners have been away from their families for the past five months. There is a substantial change in circumstances, and Accused Nos. 4 to 6 have already been released on bail. Hence, it is urged that pre-arrest bail be granted to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgments of the Rajasthan High Court in Ganesh Raj v.

State of Rajasthan and the Allahabad High Court in Abdul Hameed v. State of Uttar Pradesh

3. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners on the ground that specific overt acts are attributed to them, and there are eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence. Accused No.1 is alleged to have beaten the victim with an iron rod, and Accused No.3 is alleged to have caused injuries with a knife. There are two adverse antecedents reported against Accused No.1 and three adverse antecedents reported against Accused No.3. It is further submitted that the investigation is at a crucial stage. The petitioners have filed the present pre-arrest bail application for the second time. On the earlier occasion, this Court dismissed their pre-arrest bail application. The practice of filing successive pre-arrest bail applications has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu. Hence, it is urged that the present petition be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

5. As seen from the record, it is relevant to mention that this Court, on 11.11.2025 in Crl.P.No.11103 of 2025 filed through learned counsel Sri Allu Hari Narayana, dismissed the petition seeking pre-arrest bail, as the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the criminal petition. It is also pertinent to note that through another counsel, Sri Akula Srikrishna Sai Bhargav, the petitioners had earlier filed another petition in Crl.P.No.8957 of

2025 and on 12.09.2025, which was dismissed on the ground that specific overt acts were attributed to the petitioners. L.W.1 suffered injuries at the hands of the accused, and L.Ws. 2 and 3 are eye-witnesses to the incident. The investigation was then at a progressive stage. The present petition is the third pre-arrest bail application filed by the petitioners through a different counsel. No doubt, nearly 16 cases are registered against the de-facto complainant, and he is a rowdy-sheeter. However, no document has been produced to establish the alleged animosity between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant. The contention that the petitioners have been away from their families for the past five months is not a legally valid groun