Buraga Nani alias Vijaya Surya alias Vijay alias Chinna Nani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

BURAGA NANI ALIAS VIJAYA SURYA ALIAS VIJAY ALIAS CHINNA NANI,, S/O YESUPADAM, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO. 239, INDIRAMMA COLONY, KOMADAVOLU, ELURU MANDAL, ELURU TOWN.

¶14

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶15

AND

¶16

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.

¶17

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶19

1.DASARI RAMAKOTESWAR RAO

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶21

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

2

¶24

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4816 of 2026 Dated 02.07.2026

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.249 of 2025 of Eluru Rural Police Station, Eluru District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 351(3) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

¶27

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.08.2025 at about 2:00 p.m., the deceased, Punuru Rajesh, was allegedly called out of his house by Accused No.1 at Indiramma Colony, Komadavolu Village, Eluru Mandal. Shortly thereafter, the complainant and other witnesses, on hearing cries for help, rushed to the spot and allegedly witnessed Accused No.1 repeatedly hacking and stabbing the deceased with a knife on his neck, chest, and head, while criminally intimidating the complainant and her daughter with dire consequences if they intervened. It is further alleged that Accused No.1, along with his associates, fled from the scene in a white car after the incident. The injured was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital, Eluru, where he was declared dead by the attending doctor.

¶28

Mr. D. Ramakoteshwar Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. He contends that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is a law-abiding citizen. The learned counsel further submits that there

¶29

3

¶30

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4816 of 2026 Dated 02.07.2026

¶31

have been long-standing disputes and grudges between the Petitioner and the deceased. It is contended that the deceased, with the assistance of his henchmen, humiliated the Petitioner in the presence of several persons, causing him severe embarrassment. It is further submitted that Accused Nos.2 and 3 have already been enlarged on bail. The Petitioner was arrested on 10.09.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 292 days. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may deem fit to impose while granting bail. Hence, it is requested that the Petitioner be enlarged on bail.

¶32

4. Per contra , Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law and it is urged that the instant bail application be dismissed.

¶33

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶34

As seen from the record, no doubt, Accused Nos.2 and 3 were enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2026 in Crl.P. No.537 of 2026. However, the investigation reveals that the accusation against the present

¶35

4

¶36

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4816 of 2026 Dated 02.07.2026

¶37

Petitioner is well founded. There are eye-witnesses to the gruesome murder of the deceased, and the prosecution has also relied upon CCTV footage capturing the occurrence. In view of the material collected during the investigation, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the Petitioner on bail at this stage. Although a learned Single Judge of this Court granted bail to Accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crl.P. No.537 of 2026 by order dated 04.02.2026, the principle of parity is not attracted, as the allegations against

¶38

the present Petitioner are altogether different from those levelled against the said accused. It is specifically alleged that the Petitioner, who is Accused No.1, brutally stabbed the deceased multiple times on various parts of his body.

¶39

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v.

¶40

VishanbhaiHirabhai Makwana¹ , it is held that while applying the principle of parity, this Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner. This Court has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. Parity, while granting bail, must focus upon the role of the accused. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. This Court cannot proceed on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment. Merits or demerits of the facts of the case or evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution cannot be looked into while hearing the application for enlarging the Petitioner on bail.

¶41

1(2021) 6 SCC 230

¶42

5

¶43

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4816 of 2026 Dated 02.07.2026

¶44

In the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Ram Singh v. State of U.P.² , it is held that parity cannot be drawn while considering the bail application of co-accused.

¶45

Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner, the severity of the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged, and the fact that the accusation is well founded, as reflected in the charge sheet, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage. Therefore, the request of the Petitioner for grant of bail is not found to be convincing and reasonable at this juncture. This Court does not find any merit in the case for grant of bail to the Petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶46