Baddipudi Lakshmi kanthamma Alias Lakshki Devi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

BADDIPUDI CHENNAIAH ALIAS CHENNA KESAVALU, S/O LATE ANKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.R/O. BOYALLAVARIPALEM VILLAGE,KONDAPURAM POST MANDAL,S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶13

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Public ProsecutorHigh Court of A.P.Amaravati.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶17

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 enlarge the petitioners/Accused No. 1 & 2 on bail in the event of arrest in connection with the Crime No. 25 of 2026 on the file of Kondapuram Police Station SPSR Nellore District Dated 14.04.2026 and pass

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶19

1.MARELLA RADHA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

AND

APHC010279802026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

[3521]

¶26

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶29

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4428/2026

¶30

Between:

¶31

BADDIPUDI LAKSHMI KANTHAMMA ALIAS LAKSHKI DEVI, W/O MACHARLA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,R/O. BOYALLAVARIPALEM VILLAGE,KONDAPURAM POST MANDAL,S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT

¶32

BADDIPUDI DORASANAMMA, W/O. CHENNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARSR/O. BOYALLAVARIPALEM VILLAGE,KONDAPURAM POST MANDAL,S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶33

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶34

AND

¶35

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Public ProsecutorHigh Court of A.P.Amaravati.

¶36

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶37

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 Courtmay be pleased to enlarge the petitioners/Accused No. 3 and 4 on bail in the event of arrest in connection with the Crime No. 25 of 2026 of Kondapuram Police Station SPSR Nellore District dated 14.04.2026 and pass such

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶39

1.MARELLA RADHA

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶41

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶42

COMMON ORDER :

¶43

These Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4. for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime.No.25 of 2026 on the file of Kondapuram Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 109(1) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on, a dispute arose after a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was erected near the de facto complainant's house. On 13.04.2026, the accused allegedly restrained the complainant, poured petrol on him, and attempted to set him on fire, though he escaped. They also obstructed the entrance to his house and threatened him. On hearing him, nearby people shifted him to a Government Hospital in a 108 ambulance, from where he was referred to a hospital at Nellore, where he gave a statement to the police.

¶44

Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have no role whatsoever in the alleged offence. She further submits that, as evident from the CCTV footage collected during the investigation, it was the

¶45

de facto complainant himself who had purchased the petrol on an earlier occasion. Relying on the said circumstance, she contends that the allegations against the petitioners are unsustainable. On these grounds, she prays that the petitioners be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest.

¶46

Per contra, Mr. K. Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioners are involved in a grave and serious offence. He contended that the investigation has revealed the specific overt acts attributed to each of the accused. According to the prosecution, the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, restrained the de facto complainant, poured petrol on him, attempted to set him on fire, and threatened him with dire consequences. He contended that the investigation is still in progress, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary, and grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper the investigation and provide an opportunity to the petitioners to influence or intimidate the witnesses. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶47

Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. This Court has perused the material placed on record.

¶48

On a perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioners have been arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 4. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners. The learned counsel for

¶49

the petitioners has placed reliance on certain newspaper reports to contend that the victim committed suicide.

¶50

It is well settled that newspaper reports do not constitute substantive evidence of the facts stated therein. In Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu¹ , the Supreme Court held that a newspaper report is admissible only to prove that the report was published; it does not establish the truth of the matters reported. Any facts asserted in such reports must, therefore, be proved by admissible evidence. The court may take judicial notice only of matters of common knowledge or of undisputed public events. It cannot, however, determine disputed issues on the basis of unverified newspaper accounts.

¶51

Accordingly, in the present case, the newspaper reports relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be treated as proof of the facts stated therein. At the most, they only establish that such reports were published, but they cannot be relied upon to prove the truth of their contents. Therefore, reliance placed on the said newspaper reports is legally impermissible and deserves to be rejected.

¶52

Coming to the facts of the case, it is evident from the record that, so far, 12 witnesses have been examined during the course of investigation. The victim succumbed to the injuries on 18.04.2026. Prior to his death, the learned Magistrate recorded his dying declaration. The prosecution case is also supported by eyewitnesses to the alleged occurrence. Further, L.Ws.2 to 4 are

¶53

1 (1988) 3 SCC 319

¶54

the witnesses who allegedly rescued the victim immediately after the incident

¶55

and shifted him to the hospital for treatment.

¶56

Indeed, grant of pre-arrest bail is neither a license for commission of a grave offence nor a shield or protection for the persons who have allegedly committed grave offence, and against whom specific overt acts are attributed, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh

¶57

Sibbia v. State of Punjab² and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) .³

¶58

In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the specific allegations levelled against the Petitioners, this Court is not inclined to consider the request of Petitioners for grant of pre-arrest bail as the Petitioner is disentitled for the relief.

¶59