##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:20476 APHC010146992026

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

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2246/2026 Between:

1. O BILI NAGARAJU, S/O. SRINU,AGED, 34 YEARS,UMMAREDDYGUNTANAELLORE TOWN.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI.

2. T HE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ONGOLE TALUK POLICE STATION,ONHOLR, PRAKSAM DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. MALLAVOLU NIKITHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

2

2026:APHC:20476 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION No: 2246 of 2026

ORDER :

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024 (for short, “BNSS”), by the petitioner/Accused No.3, seeking grant of regular bail in Crime No.249 of 2025 of Ongole Taluk Urban Police Station, Prakasam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 331(5), 103(1), 351(2) read with Section

3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.04.2025 at about 21:00 hours, a report was lodged by the complainant stating that he had been working as an attender in the house of the deceased, Veeraiah Chowdary, for the past 15 years at Sambasiva Nagar, Ongole Town. On the same day at about 07:30 PM, while the complainant was present in the main hall and one Ashok, a computer operator, was in the computer room, four unknown persons entered the premises armed with knives, attacked the deceased, and inflicted multiple injuries. When the complainant attempted to intervene, he was threatened with a knife. The injured was immediately shifted for treatment, but he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the accused fled from

the scene of offence.

3. Heard Ms. M. Nikitha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the

State.

3

2026:APHC:20476

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated as Accused No.3 due to political pressure. Except hearsay and confessional statements of co-accused, there is no direct, circumstantial or corroborative evidence linking the petitioner to the commission of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that no eyewitnesses, CCTV footage, call data records or forensic materials have been produced to establish the involvement of petitioner herein in the crime. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for more than seven months, the investigation is already completed, and the charge sheet was filed in August, 2025. It is also contended that some of the co-accused have already been

granted bail. Hence, the petitioner seeks enlargement on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the case involves a heinous and premeditated offence involving the brutal murder of the deceased. The petitioner herein and other accused committed a criminal conspiracy in taking away a human life, and that, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of his threatening or influencing the prosecution witnesses. Having regard to the gravity of the offence, she prays

for dismissal of the petition.

6. Upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the deceased was subjected to a brutal attack, sustaining as many as 54 stab wounds. The material clearly depicts multiple accused in pursuant to prior concert due to personal grudges and financial motivations acted. The material

would show that all the other accused are having criminal antecedents.

4

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P, 2026:APHC:20476 held at Para No.