Dismissed¶37

Pitia Sri Ramulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Mar 2026CRLP/1543/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Criminal Petition No.1543 of 2026; decided 05.03.2026 by Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa; anticipatory bail dismissed; direct approach to High Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C / Section 528 BNSS entertained adversely absent exceptional circumstances; specific overt acts against accused in case and counter case; liberty to surrender and apply for regular bail; Crime No.02 of 2026, Payakaraopeta Police Station.

What did the court decide?

No anticipatory bail; petition dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to surrender before the concerned Magistrate Court and move for regular bail. ¶37

Pitia Sri Ramulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Bail and Remand | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3396]

¶2

APHC010100662026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1543/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

PITIA SRI RAMULU, S/O. PITIA DANDU,AGED 37 YEARS, OCC COOLIE,1-1, PALTERU, PAYAKARAOPETA,VISHAKAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH -531126

¶10

ANUSURI APPALA RAJ, S/O. LOVARAJU,AGED 35 YEARS, OCC WORKER IN MOBILE SHOPCHERUVU VADDA, S ANNAVARAM,TUNI MANDALAM, EASH GODAVARIANDHRA PRADESH

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PAYAKARAOPETA POLICE STATION,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,AMARAVATHI.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

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 pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 5 in Crime No.02 of 2026 on the file of Payakaraopeta Police Station, Anakapalli District and pass

¶16

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶18

1.RAM BABU DEVAVARAPU

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶20

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO:1543 OF 2026

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ram Babu Devavarapu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

¶26

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the incident occurred on 31.12.2025 at about 23:30 hours at Rallagunta Centre, Paltheru Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Anakapalli District, and was reported on 01.01.2026 at 12:00 hours by the complainant. He stated that on the same day morning, he and his villagers arranged a flex banner of the Hon’ble Home Minister of Andhra Pradesh at Rallagunta Centre. At that time, Pitla Dandu, Pitla Nageswara Rao, Pitla Sriramulu, and Dara Ramana objected to the flex banner as their photographs were printed on it and demanded that the same be removed, threatening dire consequences. Later, at about 23:30 hours, the said persons picked up a quarrel and attacked the complainant and his companions with sticks and cool drink bottles, causing bleeding injuries to the complainant, Pitla Siva, and Rayudu Sathish. The injured were shifted to Area Hospital, Tuni, and later to Guru Neuro Hospital, Tuni for better treatment.

¶27

Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioners herein are A3 and A5. It is a case and counter case, and in the counter case A3 is the defacto complainant.

¶28

¶29

Learned Senior counsel would further submit that the investigation has to be done by the very same Officer in the case and counter case to elicit who is the aggressor group. The remaining accused in the present case were arrested and were released on regular bail as the investigation is almost completed. The petitioners’ group as well as the complainant’s group are both relatives.

¶30

Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the petitioners are ready to furnish the sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition by granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶31

Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition. She would submit that the petitioners have approached this Court directly by filing this petition. The case does not disclose any exceptional circumstances to entertain an anticipatory bail application directly.

¶32

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the investigation in this matter reveals that the petitioners’ group are the aggressors and there are specific overt acts against the petitioners, in that A3 attacked and sustained injuries to LW-2 and A5 caused injuries to LW-3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, as rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, this application is filed directly before this Court without recourse to their remedy

¶34

¶35

before the District Court, though the case does not disclose any exceptional circumstances.

¶36

Be that as it may, even on the merits of the case, when there are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners and it is a case and counter case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. However, the petitioners are at liberty to surrender before the concerned Magistrate Court and move for regular bail. On filing such application, the learned Judge may take an appropriate decision over the matter in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶37