Shek Munevar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

[

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT^ THURSDAY JHE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE iPRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11736 OF 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

Shek Munevar, S/o Shek Bommana Sab, Aged about 60 years, R/o Eguva Nadipalli, H/o Mudaramdoddi, V. Kota Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶6

Shek Umar, S/o Shek Munevar, Aged about 17 years, R/o Eguva Nadipalli, H/o Mudaramdoddi,V. Kota Mandal, Chittoor^District.

¶7

S Akhila, W/o S. Saddam, Aged about 25 years, R/o Eguva Nadipalli, H/o Mudaramdoddi,V. Kota Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶8

Petitioners/Accused Nos.1,3 & 4

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by SHO, V.Kota Urban Police Station, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra^Pradesh at Amaravati.

¶11

Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 482 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 & 4 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of their arrest in connection with FIR No.89/2025 dt.09-06-2025 on the file of V.Kota Urban Police Station during pendency of enquiry and trial.

¶12

The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing^thePetition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY Advocate for the Petitioner, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) for the Respondent and the Court made the following.

¶13

1

¶14

APHC010608412025

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶16

[3521]

¶17

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶18

THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11736/2025

¶22

Between:

¶23

Shek Munevar and Others

¶24

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶25

AND

¶26

The State Of Andhra Pradesh

¶27

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶29

1 .A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶31

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1,3 and 4 for granting of pre-arrest^{bailinconnection} with Crime No.89 of 2025 of V.Kota Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1) 115(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’).

¶35

2

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶37

Mr. A. Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused Nos.1, 3 and 4, submits that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence. They were falsely implicated in this case. They are relatives of the victim. They have got fixed abode. They are ready to abide by any condition that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the event that pre-arrest bail is granted. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. It is further submitted that the defacto complainant and his relatives hatched a plan to obtain a divorce from accused No. 4. Hence, it is prayed that bail may be granted to the petitioners.

¶38

Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposes the grant of pre-arrest bail and submits that there are specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners. Accused Nos.1 and 2 allegedly beat the victim with an iron rod, causing grievous injuries, while accused Nos. 3 and 4 beat him with their hands and legs. There are eyewitnesses to the alleged offence of attempt to murder, and the investigation is at a nascent stage. Hence, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the criminal petition.

¶39

As seen from the record, the de-facto complainant, who is the elder brother of the victim, lodged a report with the police stating that his younger brother (the victim) was brutally beaten by accused Nos. 1 and 2 with an iron

¶40

3

¶41

rod on his head, causing severe bleeding injuries. Accused^{Nos.2and3also} beat him with their hands and legs. As a result, the victim suffered grievous injuries. L.Ws. 3 to 5 are eyewitnesses to the alleged offence of attempt to murder. Accused No.1 is the father-in-law of the victim; accused No. 3 is the victim’s brother-in-law: and accused No. 4 is the victim’s wife. 6. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 4, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 4 are not entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail, as it would amount to providing a shield or protection to a person against whom specific overt acts attributed. Grant^of pre-arrest bail is not a license for the commission of cognizable and nonbailable offences, as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab^and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhl)2. Hence, the petition against Petitioner Nos.1^{&3/AccusedNos.1&4is} dismissed.

¶42

However, Petitioner No.2 is at impressionable age of 17 years, a minor. Petitioner No.2 is a juvenile in conflict with law. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner No.2, this Court is inclined to enlarge Petitioner No.2/juvenile in conflict^{withlawonbail.} 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed with the following conditions:

¶43

'(1980) 2 see 565 '(2020) 5 see 1

¶44

4

¶45

I. In the event of arrest of the Petitioner No.2/juvenile in conflict with law, he shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a self-bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials.

¶46

The Petitioner No.2/juvenile in conflict with law shall make himself available for investigation as and when required.

¶47

III. The Petitioner No.2/juvenile in conflict with law shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution^witnesses.

¶48

IV. The Petitioner No.2/juvenile in conflict with law shall^surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit^tothat effect to the Investigating Officer.

¶49

SD/-U.SRi DEVI

¶50

DEPUTY ^REGl^TRAR //TRUE COPY// S^ION OFFICER

¶51

To,

¶52