Anticipatory bail is generally denied when the prosecution provides specific allegations of overt acts involving the use of weapons and the infliction of injuries upon the victim.

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 grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners/A4 to A11 under Section 482 of BNSS, in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 20/2026 of Kasapuram Police Station, Ananthapuramu District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 118(1), 115(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and pass

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Narik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 to 11, seeking grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.20/2026 of Kasapuram Police Station, Ananthapuramu District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 118(1), 115(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.03.2026 at about 3:50 p.m., the accused persons allegedly criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant at Dosaludiki Village, picked up a quarrel, and assaulted the complainant and his wife with hands, legs and a sickle, causing bleeding injuries. On the basis of the statement given by the injured, the present crime came to be registered.

Heard Sri M.Chiranjeevi Babu, the learned counsel on behalf of the Sri Bathula Sree Hemraj, learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material available on record.

The learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the allegations in the FIR are exaggerated and omnibus in nature without specifying individual overt acts. It is further contended that the present case arises out of prior village disputes and that there exists a counter case in Crime No.19/2026 registered against the complainant. It is also submitted that one of the accused sustained grievous injuries. Further, it is contended that some of the Petitioners are women and aged persons, suffering from ailments, and have been falsely implicated. The Petitioners are stated to be law-abiding citizens having no criminal antecedents and are willing to cooperate with the investigation. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has not pressed the petition in respect of Petitioner Nos.1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that specific overt acts are attributed against certain accused, particularly Accused Nos.5 and 7, who are alleged to have attacked the wife of the complainant with knives, causing injuries. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.

Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the allegations against Accused Nos.5 and 7 disclose specific overt acts involving use of weapons and causing injuries to the victim. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to Accused Nos.5 and 7.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed in respect of Accused Nos.5 and the Criminal Petition is dismissed as not pressed in respect of Petitioner Nos.1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8.