Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Duddakunta Deepak Reddy vs The on 30 June, 2025
APHC010280202025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5803/2025
Between:
1. DUDDAKUNTA DEEPAK REDDY, (A-1) S/O. D. RAJA REDDY,
AGED 24 YEARS, R/O. MADIREBAILU, VILLAGE, BUKKAPATNAM
MANDAL SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.
2. DUDDAKUNTA VENU GOPAL REDDY,, (A-2) S/O. D. RAJA REDDY,
AGED 21 YEARS, R/O. MADIREBAILU, VILLAGE, BUKKAPATNAM
MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.
3. DUDDAKUNTA RAJA REDDY,, (A-3) S/O. DUDDAKUNTA VENKATA
REDDY, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O. MADIREBAILU, VILLAGE,
BUKKAPATNAM MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.
4. DUDDAKUNTA SRINATH REDDY,, S/O VENKATA REDDY, (A-4)
AGED 53 YEARS, R/O. MADIREBAILU, VILLAGE, BUKKAPATNAM
MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.
5. DUDDAKUNTA VENKATA REDDY,, (A-5) S/O. D.VENKATA REDDY,
AGED 48 YEARS, R/O. MADIREBAILU, VILLAGE, BUKKAPATNAM
MANDAL SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.
6. DUDDAKUNTA SAILAJA,, (A-6) W/O. D. RAJA REDDY, AGED 44
YEARS, R/O. MADIREBAILU, VILLAGE, BUKKAPATNAM MANDAL,
SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.
7. PRAMEELAMMA @ PRAMEELA, (A-7), W/O. SRINATH REDDY,
AGED 48 YEARS, R/O. MADIREBAILU, VILLAGE, BUKKAPATNAM
MANDAL. SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.
8. D.SUJATHAMMA @ SUJATHA, (A-8), W/O. D. VENKATA REDDY,
2
AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. MADIREBAILU, VILLAGE, BUKKAPATNAM
MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.
9. A. PRABHAKAR REDDY,, S/O A.GANGI REDDY, (A-9) AGED 42
YEARS, R/O. CHERLOPALLI VILLAGE, PUTTAPARTHI MANDAL,
SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.
10. ANIKAGARI SUJATHAMMA @ SUJATHA,, (A-10) W/O. A.
PRABHAKAR REDDY, AGED 33 YEARS, R/O. CHERLOPALLI
VILLAGE, PUTTAPARTHI MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.
11. BALANAGANNAGARI SRINATH REDDY,, (A-11) S/O. B.
VENGAMUNI REDDY, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O. GASIKAVARIPALLI
VILLAGE, PUTTAPARTHI MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.
12. BALANAGANNAGARI MAHESWARAMMA,, (A-12) W/O. B.SRINATH
REDDY, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O. GASIKAVARIPALLI VILLAGE,
PUTTAPARTHI MANDAL SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 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 to grant anticipatory Bail to the
petitioners by directing the Station House Officer, Bukkapatnam Police
Station, Sri Sathya Sai District to release the petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 12
on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 105 of 2024 of
Bukkapatnam Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
3
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Facts and sequence of events:
1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. The petitioners herein are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 12 in Crime
No.105 of 2024 of Bukkapatnam Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, which
was registered with the allegations of committing the offences under Sections
118(1), 3(5) of the BNS and the accused were bailed out. But, subsequently,
charge sheet was presented by the Police for the offences under Sections
118(1), 118(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS, citing the reason that the
investigation disclosed the offence in terms of Section 118(2) read with 3(5) of
the BNS.
3. Petitioners claimed that in view of adding of Section 118(2) of the BNS,
they are afraid of arrest. Hence, the petitioners pray for a direction to release
them on Bail, in the event of their arrest.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Point for determination:
Whether the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 12 are entitled for the relief of
pre-arrest bail in respect of Crime No.105 of 2024 of Bukkapatnam
Police Station, in terms of Section 482 of BNSS in respect of newly
added Section viz. 118(2) of B.N.S. If so, on what conditions?
4
Point:
6. Special circumstance in this case is that the accused are already bailed
out, but subsequently new offences are added. Then, pertinent questions are:
what is the recourse open? whether the re-arrest of accused is permissible
ignoring the earlier bail order? and whether the petitioners / accused, who are
already on bail, can maintain another application for bail including an
application for pre-arrest / anticipatory bail?
Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners:
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that although the
petitioners are released on bail, in view of adding of a new Section i.e. 118(2)
of BNS, there is every likelihood of arrest. Petitioners did not violate any
conditions of bail. Hence, the petitioners deserve grant of pre-arrest bail under
Section 482 of the BNSS in respect of newly added Section 118(2) of BNS
and that they are ready to furnish sureties that may be ordered.
Arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor:
8. Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor formerly opposed
the application stating that the victim sustained grievous injuries. Hence,
Section 118(2) of the BNS is added and that the petitioners are not entitled for
pre-arrest bail.
5
Analysis, discussion and conclusions:
9. While addressing the observations in Syed Inayath Ullah vs. The
State of Telangana 1 , made by the Hon’ble High Court for the State of
Telangana that, when once the Police concerned followed the procedure
under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., and the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar2 for arrest of accused,
subsequently, the Police shall obtain the permission of the concerned Court,
and arrest cannot be done at the whims and fancies of the Police, the learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the situation in the case referred is
where Police initially resorted to Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and subsequently trying
to arrest but, the context in the present case before this Court is different.
Therefore, protection of the Court is necessary in this case as threat of arrest
is hanging on the head of the petitioners herein. The petitioners/ accused
herein are ready to furnish fresh bail bonds in respect of the newly added
section(s).
10. While taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, this Court finds it
appropriate to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where
the point like one involved in the present case was considered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
1
2022 SCC OnLine TS 337: (2022) 2 ALT (Cri) 37
2
(2014) 8 SCC 273
6
(i) In a case between Pradeep Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and
Another 3 , observations relevant and applicable to the present context are
made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide para Nos.11 to 31 and in para
No.31, the conclusions are drawn, which are as follows:
31. In view of the foregoing discussions, we arrive at following
conclusions in respect of a circumstance where after grant of bail to an
accused, further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added:-
31.1. The accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added
cognizable and non-bailable offences. In event of refusal of bail, the
accused can certainly be arrested.
31.2. The investigating agency can seek order from the Court under
Section 437(5) or 439(2) of CrPC for arrest of the accused and his
custody.
31.3. The Court, in exercise of power under Section 437(5) or 439(2) of
CrPC, can direct for taking into custody the accused who has already
been granted bail after cancellation of his bail. The Court in exercise of
power under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2) can direct the
person who has already been granted bail to be arrested and commit him
to custody on addition of graver and non-cognizable offences which may
not be necessary always with order of cancelling of earlier bail.
31.4. In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the
investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not
proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such
addition of offence or offences it need to obtain an order to arrest the
accused from the Court which had granted the bail.
(ii). Further, in a case between Ms.X vs. The State of Maharashtra and
Another 4 arising out of Criminal Appeals Nos.822-823 of 2023 decided on
17.03.2023, while referring to Pradeep Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and
Another (3 supra) case, Hon’ble Apex Court considered a situation of initial
bail order for the offences under Sections 354, 354-B and 506 of the IPC and
subsequently adding Section 376 of IPC. In this, the situation was that the
3
(2019) 17 SCC 326
4
2023 3 Supreme 92; 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 243
7
bail was granted for the offences under Section 354, 354-B and 506 of the IPC
and application for cancellation of bail was moved on the ground of adding of
additional Section 376 IPC and non compliances of Section 41-A Notice, etc.
The Application filed for cancellation of bail was allowed by the concerned
Court. Then an application was moved by the accused seeking anticipatory
bail before the sessions Court and it was rejected. Subsequently the accused
moved the Hon’ble High Court for grant of pre-arrest bail in terms of Section
438 Cr.P.C. and the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay allowed the application,
where upon the aggrieved prosecutrix approached the Hon’ble Apex Court. In
that context, the Hon’ble Apex Court interfered with the order of Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay on the grounds Bombay High Court ignored: (a) nature and
gravity of the offence; (b) the financial status and position of the accused and
the prosecutrix; (c) an opportunity of hearing to the prosecutrix in the pre-
arrest bail application.
11. The objection of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the
application for pre-arrest bail is not maintainable, on the ground of accused
being already on bail for some sections in the same Crime Number found not
convincing, as threat of arrest in respect of newly added section is staring
against the petitioners / accused. It is not a case of prosecution that they
have moved any application for cancellation of bail and that they are not going
to arrest the petitioners. Newly added Sections are non-bailable.
12. Further, it is pertinent to note in the case of Ms.X vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Another (4 supra) entertaining application of pre-arrest bail
8
in respect of newly added offences was not found fault by the Hon’ble Apex
Court. The interference of the Hon’ble Apex Court was on the ground of not
providing opportunity to the prosecutrix and not considering the gravity of the
case which suggest that the application for pre-arrest bail is maintainable.
Therefore, objection of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is not
considered.
13. It is relevant to note that certain parameters are referred in para 9 of the
judgment for granting of bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prasanta
Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Another5. They are as follows:
“(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the
accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced;
and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.”
5
(2010) 14 SCC 496
9
14. In this case, it is relevant to note the following aspects:
(i). The investigation is already completed and charge sheet also ready.
(ii). As per the copy of the charge sheet enclosed, LW.1 sustained
bleeding injury on head right hand little finger, whereas LW.3 sustained
swelling injuries on right thigh and left elbow. LW.2 did not receive any
injuries.
(iii) It appears that the informant and his brother have disputes and made
compliant against with each other.
(iv) The prosecution did not move any application for cancellation of bail
etc., so far. But, petitioners approached this Court offering to furnish
security and to comply the conditions that may be imposed.
(v) Bail was granted in respect of offence under Section 118(1) of BNS,
But, now the Section 118(2) of BNS being added, on the ground LW.3
received grievous injuries.
(vi) Wound Certificate not produced.
(vii) There is no allegation of petitioners/accused either violating bail
conditions or interfering with investigation process.
(viii) Possibility of arrest of petitioners is clear.
15. Upon considering the legal position addressed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the cases cited above vide Pradeep Ram vs. State of Jharkhand
and another (3 supra), Ms.X vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
(4 supra) and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Another
10
(5 supra) and also the factual scenario in this case, balancing the interest of
both sides following conclusions are drawn:
1) The investigation authority merely on addition of offences shall not
proceed to arrest. But, it need to obtain an order of arrest from the
concerned Court.
2) The accused can apply for bail for newly added sections which includes
the application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the concerned Court.
3) The present application filed for grant of pre-arrest bail in terms of
Section 482 of BNSS is maintainable;
4) On facts the petitioners/accused herein are entitled for grant of pre-arrest
bail in respect of newly added Section 118(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS.
16. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed as follows:
1) Petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned S.H.O. within
’15’ days, on such appearance or in the event of their arrest, they shall be
released on bail in respect of Crime No.105 of 2024 of Bukkapatnam Police
Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, for the offence under Section 118(2) r/w. 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the condition of Petitioners/Accused
executing addtitonal bail bonds for Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties each
for a like sum to the satisfaction of the S.H.O., Bukkapatnam Police Station,
Sri Sathya Sai District.
2) The Petitioners and their sureties shall furnish their permanent
residential address details and identity particulars to the concerned police and
keep the Police informed about the change in address, if any, time to time.
11
3) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation agency, by
furnishing necessary and legally permissible information and they shall not
interfere with the investigation process like contacting or influencing the
witnesses etc.
4) The petitioners shall not leave India, without permission of the
concerned Court.
____________________________
A. HARIHARANADHA SARMA, J
Date: 30.06.2025
Note:
L.R. Copy be marked
(B/o.)
Knr
12THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5803 OF 2025
Date: 30.06.2025
Note:
L.R. Copy be marked
(B/o.)
Knr