Bellamkonda Venkata Gowtham Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF AN D HRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer, Ongole Taluq Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District R ep., by its Public Prosecutor, Hi g h Court at Amaravathi.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Petition under Sectio n 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 52 8 of BNSS praying that in the circum s tances stated in the Memorandum of G rounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to release the Petitioner on bail in Crime No.249/2025 on the file of the Ongole Taluq Poli c e Station, Ongole, Prakasam District in the interest of justice

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶16

1.P NAGENDRA REDD Y

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶18

1.PUBLIC PROSECUT O R

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1571/2026

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 5, seeking regular bail, in Crime.No. bail in Crime No.249/2025 on the file of the Ongole Taluq Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 331(5), 103(1), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

¶24

Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused No.4 and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

¶25

This is the 3^rd bail application filed before this Court. Earlier, the Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner/Accused No.4, vide Crl.P.Nos.588 of 2026 and 12492 of 2025.

¶26

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegation against the petitioner is absolutely false. The petitioner did not participate in the commission of the offence and only based on the confession of the other accused, the police arrested the petitioner on 14.05.2025 and sent to judicial remand and the investigation is substantially completed and key witnesses have already been examined. Therefore, further custodial interrogation serves no purpose.

¶27

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State would submit that the present case pertains to a heinous and premeditated offence involving the brutal murder of the deceased, which has shocked the conscience of society. The allegations against the accused persons, including the present petitioner, disclose a clear and well-orchestrated criminal conspiracy resulting in the intentional taking of a human life. The gravity and seriousness of the offence, coupled with the way it was executed, disentitle the petitioner to the relief of bail at this stage. She would further submit that there is no change of circumstances from the date of dismissal of the 1^st and 2^nd bail application in Crl.P.Nos.588 of 2026 and 12492 of 2025. She finally submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner, his alleged role played in this case and there is no change of circumstances from the date of dismissal of the 1^st and 2^nd bail application in Crl.P.Nos.588 of 2026 and 12492 of 2025, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

¶29

7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶30

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in

¶31

this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶32

__________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶33

Date: 09.03.2026. KKV

¶34

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA