Nalluri Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Anticipatory Bail | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

Nalluri Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Anticipatory Bail | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Enlargement on bail effected through a surrender mechanism: petitioner to surrender within two (02) weeks; on surrender, release on bail on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of a like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; availability for investigation as and when required; no threat, inducement or promise to prosecution witnesses; appearance before the Investigating Officer every Sunday (10.00 a.m.-12.00 noon) for two (02) months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/Accused No. 1, arrayed in Crime No. 92 of 2025 of Ongole Taluk Police Station for offences under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1) r/w 190 BNS, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 438 Cr.P.C.). +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner was directed to surrender before the concerned police station within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and on his surrender to be released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials.

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie perusal of the FIR disclosed prior disputes between the parties, but the wound certificate showed only simple injuries; accordingly, the contents of the medical certificate did not fit in with the gravity of the allegations mentioned in the report.

Key takeaways

The possibility of the matter attracting Section 307 IPC was noted as one that cannot be ruled out (surrounding passage is OCR-damaged; precise scope of this observation is unclear).¶37
The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon for a period of two (02) months.ratio¶41
The petitioner shall make himself available for investigation as and when required and shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (T Mallikarjuna Rao, J.), 08.04.2025 - Criminal Petition No. 1992 of 2025 under S.482 BNSS 2023 (S.438 Cr.P.C.): anticipatory bail sought by A1 in Crime No. 92 of 2025, Ongole Taluk PS (Ss.189(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1) r/w 190 BNS), arising from an 18.02.2025 altercation in which the FIR alleged beating with sticks and throttling with intent to kill. The wound certificate recorded only simple injuries and, as ascertained from the Public Prosecutor, the victim was treated as an outpatient; the court found that the contents of the medical certificate did not fit in with the gravity of the allegations in the report, while noting that attraction of S.307 IPC could not be ruled out. On the further ascertained position of no reported antecedents against the petitioner, a permanent resident of Ongole, the Court directed: surrender within two (02) weeks; on surrender, release on bail on a Rs.20,000/- personal bond with two like-sum sureties; availability for investigation; no threat/inducement to witnesses; and reporting before the Investigating Officer every Sunday (10 a.m.-12 noon) for two (02) months. Criminal Petition allowed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATU;^^^^
..f.
TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL
%
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE "SKi"^ •>xV*-'
.'^3
X|
■PRESENT:
m Y'tf
honourable SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO* 'W’r/
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1992 OF 2025

Between:

Nalluri Srinivasa Rao, S/o Ramamurthy Aged about 51 years, R/o D.No. 7/129, Samatha Nagar, Lakshmi Narasimhapuram, Ongole, Prakasam District.

...Petitioner/Accused No.1

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through S.H.O Ongole Taluk PS Represented by P P High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi

...Respondent

Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (438 of Cr.P.C), praying that in the circumstances stated ini the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 92 of 2025 dated 19.02.2025 on the file of Ongole Taluk PS , Prakasam district for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109 (1) r/w 190 BNS.

Counsel for the Petitioner Ms. Ayesha Azma S Counsel for the Respondent : Assistant Public Prosecutor.

The Court made the following

ORDER:

*>>
A

r

APHC010093552025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3369]

TUESDAY. THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

THE

PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

r.RIMlNAL PETITION NO: 1992/2025

Between: Nalluri Srinivasa Rao

The State Of Andhra Pradesh

AND

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

...respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused; 1.AYESHA AZMAS

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following: ORDER:

of the Bharatiya Nagarik This Criminal Petition, u/Sec.482 been filed by the petitioner/A1, seeking Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has No.92/2025 of Ongole Taluk Police Station, anticipatory bail, in Crime Prakasam District. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner and others for the u/Sec.189(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1) r/w 190 B.N.S. offence punishable 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.

F

2

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 18.02.2025 at 4.30 pm at Nethaji colony near Mangamma college, Ongole wherein the complainant Nalluri Venkata Praveen Kumar stated that^herunsstone crusher at Budavada village, Chimakurthy Mandal. There are long standing ill feelings between himself and Chinna Swamy^ofTamilnadu State with regard to wine business. Later they both had compromised in the presence of elders. But his senior paternal uncle^{sonaccusedNalluri} Srinivasarao involved from the side of Chinna Swamyⁱⁿ this issue and threatening him by saying that the compromise will^{notbevalidandto} pay an amount what he said, otherwise he will see his^end. But he did not agree. Due to that Nalluri Srinivasrao developed grudge and hatched a plan to kill him. While so, on 18.02.2025 at 4.30 pm he along with Putta Srinivasarao and 4 others were present, at that time he asked Nalluri Srinivasarao that compromise was over why involved in this issue. On that all accused shouting loudly by saying to kill him and caught hold of him and pushed him down and beat him with sticks. Among them^Nalluri Srinivasarao sat on him with an intention to kill him and caught hold of throat and pressed tightly and shouting to kill him. Later escaped from the hands of the accused and went to Government General Hospital, Ongole with the help of his friends for treatment there his statement was recorded.

Heard. Perused the record.

p

3

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the^{petitionerand} the defacto complainant are cousins and according to^{theavermentsof} the report that there were previous disputes in between^{thepetitionerand} one Chinnaswamy of Tamilnadu in connection with a wine^shopandthe said disputes were compromised but keeping the same in mind the present complaint was lodged by the complainant and^{praystoallowthe} criminal petition. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that^{theinvestigation} is at crucial stage in this case and prays to dismiss^{thecriminalpetition.} 8. A perusal of the F.l.R prima-facie suggests that^{thereweresome} disputes between the defacto complainant and the accused.^Accordingto intention to kill the report, A1, A4 and others hit him with sticks with^an and sat on him and pressed the throat. Whereas the^{woundcertificate} shows that the defacto complainant sustained simple^injuries. Thus the contents of the medical certificate do not fit in with^{thegravityofthe} allegations mentioned in the report. As such the possibility^ofmaking section 307 I PC cannot be ruled out. When such allegations to attract ascertained learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no antecedents reported against the petitioner. The petitioner is shown to such there is no possibility of his the permanent resident of Ongole, as from the record that most of the fleeing away from justice. It appears investigation completed and when ascertained, learned Public Prosecutor

%

4

submits that the defacto complainant/victim got treatment as out patient and he was not admitted in the hospital.

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned police station within a period of two (02)^{weeksfromthedate} of receipt of a copy of the order and on his surrender the petitioner/M shall be released on bail on his executing a personal^{bondforasumof} Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two^suretiesfora like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials and the petitioner shall make himself available for investigation^as and when required and he shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer concerned on every Sunday between 10.00 am^{and12.00noonfor} a period of two (02) months.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

//TRUE COPY//

SDMVJSRlNfVAS , ASSISTANTi^Gl3TRAR SECTION OFFICER

For

To,

The Station House Officer, Ongole Taluk Police Station, Prakasam District.

OneCCto Ms. Ayesha Azma S, Advocate [OPUC]

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor (AP) High Court of Andhra Pradesh

[OUT]

One spare copy

cvss

\

f

HIGH COURT

TMR,J

DATED;08/04/2025

BAIL ORDER

CRLP.No.1992 of 2025

ALLOWED

5^'.
''O
or
rn
LftB WR
eo I