APHC010281962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5868/2025 Between:

1. M . REDDEPPA REDDY, S/O. M.VAASUDEVA REDDY, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O.GANUGALAGADDA VILLAGE, H/O.CHANDRAMAKULAPALLI PUNGANUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by SHO, P.S.Punganur Urban Through Public Prosecutor High Court, Amaravati.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused.no.5 on bail in respect of the Crime.No.81 Of 2025 (P.S., Punganur Urban) on the file of learned I Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Punganur, Chittoor District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. K L B KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5868/2025

ORDER:

The Criminal Petition under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.5, seeking regular bail in Crime.No.81 Of 2025 (P.S., Punganur Urban) on the file of learned I Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Punganur, Chittoor District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 103(1), 109(1), 61(2)(a) r/w 3(5) BNS.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the defacto- complainant- Kagithi Suresh Naidu, lodged a complaint stating that on 15.03.2025, Accused No.1 attacked him and his father, resulting in the death of his father by name Kagithi Ramakrishna Naidu. It is alleged that the petitioner herein (A-5) conspired with A-1 and others to commit the said offence and provided a hunting sickle used in the commission of the offence. Basing on the said complaint, the above crime was registered.

3. No representation on behalf of the petitioner.

4. Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State would submit that the allegations against the petitioner/accused No.5 are grave and serious in nature and he conspired with A1 and other accused to commit the murder of the deceased. She further submit that the investigation reveals prima facie material showing his involvement in hatching the conspiracy and facilitating the commission of the offence and if he released on bail, there is every likelihood of the petitioner influencing the witnesses.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and a fair look at the material on record before the Court, the offence alleged under Section 103(1) of the BNS, 2023, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The allegations disclose that the deceased was attacked with a deadly weapon and he succumbed to the injuries during the incident. Though the petitioner was not the person who physically attacked the deceased, the prosecution specifically alleges that he was involved in the criminal conspiracy and facilitated the commission of the offence. The material collected during investigation, including statements of witnesses, prima facie show his involvement in the planning of the offence. The offence is grave in nature and arises out of political rivalry in the same village. The possibility of the petitioner influencing or threatening prosecution witnesses, cannot be ruled out at this stage. The contention of false implication is a matter to be decided during trial and cannot be a ground to grant bail when serious allegations are supported by prima facie material.

6. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the offence, and the material collected during investigation, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at