The court grants bail in familial disputes where the major part of the police investigation is complete and there is no indication that the accused will tamper with evidence or obstruct the legal process.

Between:

1. GUNJE PEDDIRAJU, S/O. CHINNA TIRUPKHI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,R/O. 1-138, GUDIGUNTA VILLAGE, DENDULURU MANDA , ELURU DISTRICT.

2. GUNJE YESU, S/O. PEDDIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,R/O. 1-138, GUDIGUNTA VILLAGE,DENDULURU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT.

3. VEMULA KUMAR, SHOWN AS VEMULA KURAKULA KUMAR S/O. PEDDIRAJU, AED ABOUT 46 YEARS,R/O. 64-24-2/18, NEAR PAPER MILL,RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY.

4. KOMIRI VARADA RAJU, SHOWN AS KOMIRI GUNJE VARADHARAJU S/O. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,R/O. 64-24-2/18, NEAR PAPER MILL,RAJIV GANDHI NAGPR, RAJAHMUNDRY.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SHO, Denduluru Police Station, Eluru District, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 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 Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 4, 13 and 14 on regular bail in Crime No.79 of 2026 on the file of Denduluru Police Station, Eluru District, and pass such

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1.P SAI SURYA TEJA

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 4, 13 and 14 on bail in Crime No.79 of 2026 of Denduluru Police Station, Eluru District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 329(4), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Heard Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that due to previous family disputes between the complainant and accused No.1, who is his paternal uncle, frequent quarrels used to take place between them. On 23.04.2026, in the evening, when the complainant questioned accused No.1 regarding placing lemons (used for pooja) on the boundary wall of his house, all the accused allegedly trespassed into their house, abused them in filthy language, picked up a quarrel, and threatened to kill them. Again, on 24.04.2026 at about 6:30 A.M., the accused persons, armed with deadly weapons such as sticks and iron rods, allegedly attacked them, resulting in severe injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ingredients of the offence under Section 109(2) of the BNS, are not attracted in the present crime, as there are no deceased victims, and the allegations would fall under Section 109(1) of BNS. It is further submitted that the dispute is purely among family members arising out of an altercation. It is also submitted that accused Nos.1, 13 and 14 were arrested on 01.05.2026 and accused No.4 was arrested on 05.05.2026.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that except receipt of the RFSL report, major part of the investigation has already been completed.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, and having regard to the fact that the dispute is between family members, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions:

i. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 4, 13 and 14 shall be enlarged on bail subject each of them executing bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees te