The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners / Accused Nos.5 and 6, in connection with Crime No.20 of 2026 on the file of B.Kothakota Urban Police Station, Annamayya, which was registered for the offences under Sections 103(1) and 115(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, in view of the disputes between the family of the Accused and the De facto complainant with regard to the way to reach the sheep, on 21.02.2026 at about 7.30 a.m., when the De facto complainant and his family members questioned the Accused, Accused No.1 picked up a stick, abused the father of the De facto complainant, beat him on the back side of his head. The other Accused also beat the deceased and the Petitioners / Accused Nos.5 and 6 also beat the deceased with hands and kicked with legs due to which the deceased sustained injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to the hospital and while undergoing treatment, he died on 26.02.2026.

3. Heard Sri Pasapala Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners would contend that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated due to longstanding disputes between the parties and that no specific overt acts are attributable to them. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that a counter case in Crime No.23 of 2026 has been registered against the de facto complainant and his family members, as the Petitioners themselves sustained injuries in the same incident. It is further contended that the Petitioners are well educated women and Petitioner No.1 is working as a Software Engineer and Petitioner No.2 has completed her Post Graduation. If they are arrested, their future will be spoiled. Learned counsel would submit that the Petitioners have no criminal antecedents and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is not required. It is submitted that the remaining Accused in the present crime were released on regular bail. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners.

5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that there are specific overt acts attributed to the Petitioners. It is submitted that the Petitioners were present at the scene of offence and allegedly beat the deceased with hands and kicked with legs. Therefore, it is argued that there are no grounds for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage and sought dismissal of the petition.

6. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the allegations arise out of a dispute between two families relating to a pathway, which appears to be longstanding in nature. The existence of a counter case in Crime No.23 of 2026 registered against the de facto complainant and his family members prima facie indicates that the occurrence was not one-sided and that both parties have set the criminal law in motion against each other. While the prosecution would contend that there are specific overt acts attributed to the Petitioners, it is to be noted that the nature of allegations, at this stage, requires appreciation of evidence which can only be revealed during the course of investigation or trial.

7. Though the prosecution alleges specific overt acts against the petitioners, the same are matters for detailed investigation and appropriate adjudication during trial. At this stage, custodial interrogation of the Petitioners does not appear to be warranted, particularly when they are stated to be well-educated women, having no criminal antecedents, and there is no material to indicate likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. Further, it is also relevant that the co-Accused have already been grant