Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
P. Aruna, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 July, 2025
1
APHC010281582025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5872/2025
Between:
1. P. ARUNA,, W/O. P. SIVA KUMAR (A-1), AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GATTU VILLAGE,
NESANURPANCHAYATHI, PUTTUR MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
2. P. DILLI BABU,, S/O. P. SIVA KUMAR (A-2), AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. GATTU VILLAGE,
NESANURPANCHAYATHI, PUTTUR MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
3. P. SIVA KUMAR,, S/O. P. CHANGAIAH (A-3), AGED ABOUT 56
YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE R/O. GATTU VILLAGE,
NESANURPANCHAYATHI, PUTTUR MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
4. P. VISHNU @ PAGADALA VISHNU PRASAD (A-4),, S/O. P. SIVA
KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC- PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O.
GATTU VILLAGE, NESANURPANCHAYATHI, PUTTUR MANDAL,
TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
5. M. MURALI @ MANNEPALLI MURALI (A-5),, S/O. LATE M.
NADHAMUNI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC- RETIRED EMPLOYEE,
R/O. GATTU VILLAGE, NESANURPANCHAYATHI, PUTTUR MANDAL,
TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
6. M. VIJAY @ M. VIJAY KUMAR,, S/O. M. MURALI (A-6), AGED ABOUT
37 YEARS, OCC- PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. GATTU VILLAGE,
2
NESANURPANCHAYATHI, PUTTUR MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
7. M. VIKRAM,, S/O. M. MURALI (A-8), AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC-
PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. GATTU VILLAGE,
NESANURPANCHAYATHI, PUTTUR MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
8. M. SASI KUMAR @ MANNEPALLI SASHI KUMAR (A-9),, S/O. LATE. M.
SIVANAMDAM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC- EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.
NO. 1-325/5, LAKSHMI NAGAR COLONY, PUTTUR MANDAL,
TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
9. M. KRANTHI KUMAR,, S/O. M. RAMACHANDRAIAH (A-10), AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O. D. NO. 18-38-S4-414,
RAILWAY COLONY, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
10. M. MUNIRATHANAM,, S/O. LATE M. VENAKATAMUNI (A-11), AGED
ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O. GATTU VILLAGE,
NESANURPANCHAYATHI, PUTTUR MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
11. M. SIVA SAI KUMAR @ MANNEPALLI SIVA SAI (A-12),, S/O. M.
MUNIRATHAM, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC- PRIVATE
EMPLOYEE, R/O. GATTU VILLAGE, NESANURPANCHAYATHI,
PUTTUR MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
12. M. SAMATHA,, W/O. M. JAGANADH PRASAD (A-13), AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, OCC- HOUSEHOLD, R/O. D. NO. 1-2-216A, PRAKASAM
ROAD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
13. M. RANEMIRIA @ M. RANI,, W/O. M. RAMACHANDRAIAH (A-14),
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GATTU VILLAGE,
NESANURPANCHAYATHI, PUTTUR MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
14. M. PRASAD,, S/O. M. SUBRAMANYAM (A-15), AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, OCC- EMPLOYEE, R/O. GATTU VILLAGE,
NESANURPANCHAYATHI, PUTTUR MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
3
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings at
Nelapadu, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. (Puttur Police Station, Tirupati
District)
...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 CourtPleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the
petitioners/accused nos. 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9, 10,11,12,13,14 andlSin the event of
their arrest in Crime No. 80 of 2025dated 02.06.2025on the file of Puttur Police
Station, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. CHAMARTHY LEELA SRINNIVASA VARMA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
4
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5872 of 2025
ORDER:
1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of pre-arrest bail.
2. The petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 6 and 8 to 15, in
Crime No.80 of 2025 of Puttur Police Station, Tirupathi District, registered with
the allegation of committing the offences punishable under Sections 118(1),
115(2), 74, 351(2) r/w. 3(5) BNS.
3. The petitioners, while denying the allegations made against them,
contended that they are, in fact, the victims and their complaint is covered by
Crime No.79 of 2025 of the same Police Station. However, to victimize them,
they are arrayed as accused in the present case, at the instance of the
complainant-party in this case.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Point for determination:
Whether the petitioners/A1 to A6 and A8 to 15 are entitled for grant of
pre-arrest bail in terms of Section 482 of BNSS? If so, on what terms?Point:
5
Case of Prosecution:-
6. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that one E. Kavitha alias Bujji,
informant reported to police on 02.06.2025 that, on the night of 27th May
(Tuesday) i.e. in the early morning of Wednesday (28.05.2025) at about 03:00
a.m., during Gangamma Jathara celebrations, while she along with others going
on the procession, when they reached near the house of M. Ranemma alias
M.Rani / A14 and M. Kranthi Kumar / A10 etc., the accused party, with an evil
intention to stop the jatara/celebrations, all of a sudden attacked the informant
and others with deadly weapons. One of the accused, by name M. Srinath
(Vinay)/A7, misbehaved with the informant and he tore her blouse, thereby
insulting her modesty. Further, the accused even threatened the informant party
that they will be eliminated. Hence, the accused are liable for prosecution in
terms of the sections under which the case is registered.
Case of the petitioners:
7. While denying the allegations, the petitioners submitted that earlier there
was an attack by the informant party and a complaint was lodged by P.Aruna/A1
herein, which is covered by Crime No.79 of 2025 of the same Police Station
registered on 31.05.2025 for the offences under Sections 118(1), 115(2) 351(2)
r/w. 3(5) of BNS.
6
Submissions:
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the party of
petitioners’ was standing to offer prayers for Gangamma Ammavaru. At that
time, one T. Surendra, T. Sivaiah, T. Umapathi etc., who are arrayed as accused
in Crime No.79 of 2025, attacked the petitioners party. The informant herein i.e.
E. Kavitha alias Bujji is one of them and she is arrayed as A8 in Crime No.79 of
2025. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail.
Analysis, discussion and conclusions:-
9. The parameters to be considered while granting the bail 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.”
10. In spite of granting time and posting the matter from time to time i.e. on
23.06.2025, 25.06.2025, 27.06.2025 and 30.06.20285, the concerned Police did
not furnish Case Diary (CD) or complete information. The material placed is
indicating that a Crime was registered at the instance of petitioners herein vide
7
Crime No.79 of 2025 on 31.05.2025, whereas the present case, i.e. Crime No.80
of 2025 was registered on 02.06.2025.
11. The context appears to be while the procession was taking place, both the
groups were in the process of offering their prayers to goddess in their own way.
Previous animosities, disputes or pre- planned attacks are not indicated in the
complaint. The incident appears to have occurred suddenly.
12. The case is at the investigation stage, although there is mention of injuries,
the gravity of such injuries has not been placed on record, in spite of giving
sufficient opportunity.
13. Upon considering the facts and circumstances as to registration of the
case against the petitioners herein, subsequent to the registration of a Crime
registered at their instance and pendency of investigation etc. in both cases,
including the gravity and a context from which the case arose, and the readiness
of the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation as well as offering security
for their appearance, during the process of investigation etc., the prayer of the
petitioners for grant of pre-arrest bail found not objectionable. Therefore, the
point framed is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioners.
14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed, as follows:
1) Petitioners are directed to appear before 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.80 of 2025 of Puttur Police Station, Tirupathi
8District, which was registered with the allegation of committing offence under
Sections 118(1), 115(2), 74, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS, on the condition of
Petitioners executing bail bonds for Rs.20,000/- each with two sureties each for
a like sum to the satisfaction of the S.H.O., Puttur Police Station, Tirupathi
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.
3) For the purpose of expediting the investigation process, the
Petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned S.H.O., after release on
bail on every alternative Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. for a period
of eight (08) weeks or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier.
4) 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.
5) The petitioners shall not leave India, without permission of the
concerned Court.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date:01.07.2025
Knr
9
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5872 OF 2025
Date: 01-07-2025
Knr