APHC010581172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11276/2025 Between:

Punthotam Sankar Ajay Kumar ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

K.S. Murthy Associates Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

Public Prosecutor The Court made the following:

ORDER

Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the BNSS by the Petitioner/Accused No.9 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.88 of 2025 of Rolugunta Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the alleged offences punishable

under Sections 103(1), 118(1), 351(3), 61(2) and 49 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the BNS

2. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family. Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with a permanent abode and is willing to comply with any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner undertakes to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and that custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioner has already extended full cooperation to the Investigating Officer and there exists no reasonable apprehension of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence.

4. Sri K.S. Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel further submits that the de- facto complainant was never at the scene of offence nor witnessed the incident directly. Yet, he made an allegation that Accused Nos.1 to 7 spelled the name of the petitioner during the attack that the petitioner had told them to kill the deceased and would handle consequences, without any direct evidence or specifics. It is a hearsay allegation that the accused shouted and was made deliberately to implicate the petitioner. Surprisingly, he didn't even state who informed him about the incident and about the shouting by Accused

Nos.1 to 7 during alleged criminal acts. No prudent man would ever shout like that before committing the offence and such artificial imputation was made only to rope in the petitioner as an accused due to previous grudge against him that he was providing legal assistance to the other accused in cases against the deceased.

5. It is further submitted that since the deceased was a political leader, the incident took a political turn with many leaders putting pressure on police and that resulted in an attempt to fortify the case against the petitioner through illegal confessions of the co-accused before police, which are vague as they lack details such as the time, place, or manner of the alleged instigation. Such confessions before police of co-accused which were mentioned in the remand report of the A1 to A7 are inadmissible under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the BSA. When there is no direct evidence linking the petitioner to the land dispute or the offence, the question of instigating the accused would not arise and there was absolutely no necessity for the petitioner to commit the alleged acts. The petitioner was never at the scene of offence even as per the report and has no connection to the parties or the civil dispute over land other than providing professional legal services as an advocate to Accused Nos.1 to 7. The petitioner is a 64-year-old advocate with no prior criminal cases. He is suffering from Psoriasis, diabetes, Blood Pressure, ulcers in Liver at Primary stage and needs constant medication. His incarceration is not nece