Dismissed

Tulasi Naik v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2026CRLP/7778/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 BNSS, petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered for offences under Section 118 BNS involving alleged grievous injuries to the complainant. The Court rejected the argument that pending civil disputes or financial hardship warranted bail. Noting specific overt acts causing severe injuries and the view that bail would act as a shield, the Court held that the petition was not maintainable and dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 7778 of 2026 is dismissed. No relief granted to the petitioners.

Tulasi Naik Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Bail and Remand | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010465462026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7778/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

TULASI NAIK, S/O. R.YERRI SWAMY,AGED 49 YEARS, LINEMANR/O D.NO.3-150, LATHAVARAM THANDA VILLAGE,URAVAKONDA MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT

¶11

R SUNKAMMA, W/O.R.TULASI NAIK,AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,R/O. D.NO.3-150, LATHAVARAM THANDA VILLAGE,URAVAKONDA MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at AmaravatiThrough Station House Officer,Vajrakarur Police Station,Ananthapuram District - 515001

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶17

SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶19

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

¶21

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7778 of 2026 Dated 15.09.2026

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER :

¶24

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2, seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.88 of 2025 of Vajrakarur Police Station, Ananthapuram District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 118(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’).

¶25

Mr.Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocents of the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are the sole earning members of the family and Petitioners

¶26

are law-abiding citizens, and therefore, their incarceration would cause undue hardship to their dependants.

¶27

The learned counsel for Petitioners further submits that the investigation is completed except filing of the charge-sheet; Crime was registered on 20.08.2025. Initially, the case was registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 118(1) read with 3(5) of ‘the BNS’. Petitioners are the permanent residents of Ananthapuram District.

¶28

¶29

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7778 of 2026 Dated 15.09.2026

¶30

They have got fixed abode. There are civil disputes pending in between the Petitioners and the De-facto-Complainant and that there are compromise talks are going on. Petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, the learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.

¶31

Per contra , Mr. A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 and submits that the investigation is not yet completed. If the petitioners are enlarged on pre-arrest bail, they may not cooperate with the Investigating Officer and may evade the process of law.

¶32

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits there are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2. The De-facto Complainant suffered grievous injuries in the hands of the petitioners. Investigation is still going on. Accusations are well founded against the petitioners and urged to dismiss the petition.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 7. As seen from the record, the petitioners were shown as Accused Nos.1 and 2. Based on the statement given by the De-facto complainant

¶34

¶35

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7778 of 2026 Dated 15.09.2026

¶36

the police have registered the case in FIR.No.88 of 2025 on 20.08.2026

¶37

for the alleged offence punishable under Section 118(1) read with 3(5) of ‘the BNS’. There is no doubt that the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 were served notice under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’. Subsequently, in the course of investigation, the section of law was altered from Section 118(1) of ‘the BNS’ to Section 118(2) of ‘the BNS’.

¶38

As per the statement given by the De-facto-complainant, Accused

¶39

No.1 bet with iron rod on the head of the De-facto-Complainant and the Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2, who is the wife of the petitioner No.1 /Accused No.1, bet the De-facto-Complainant with stone on the right eye-brow region and caused severe bleeding injuries. There are specific allegations against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 and that the accusations are well founded against the petitioners.

¶40

In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2, this Court is not inclined to grant prearrest bail to the Petitioners, as it would amount to giving a shield, or protection or license to the Petitioners, who had allegedly caused severe injuries to the victim, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

¶41

¶42

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7778 of 2026 Dated 15.09.2026

¶43

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab¹ and Sushila Aggarwal v.

¶44

State of (NCT of Delhi)² .

¶45

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶46

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶47

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶48

Date: 15.09.2026 RSI/DRNR

¶49