✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 02 May 2025

Routhu Kumar & Ors. v. The State Of Andhra

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 77. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. SDI- K.SRINIVASA RAJU STRAR ASSISTANT;;^ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// F To,

Judgment

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C and Under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.1,2 on bail pending disposal of Crime No. 190/2024 of Narsipatnam Town P.S., now Anakapalli District. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Advocate for thd Petitioners, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent: APHC010207572025 0- IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4410/2025 Between; Routhu Kumar, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S);

1.GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant;

#1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the petitioners herein/AI and A2, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.190 of 2024 of Narsipatnam Town Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS.

#2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, that the defacto complainant is a resident of Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District, has been working as a welder for Ganesh at Balighattam. The complainant, along with his friends Sheik Zeelani, Karri Ajay, Durga, Chinna, others, frequently associates Varsikpatnam area. On 01.09.2024, at around 3:00 p.m., A1 2 posted a derogatory video about them on Instagram. This video was later forwarded by Bhanu from BC Colony to Jilu. Subsequently, the group gathered at Shanmukh Nagar Layout at around 4;00 p.m., where A1, A2, and one Prasad from Kalasi Colony arrived and physically assaulted them using hands and legs, and threatened them. Later on the same day, at around 9:15 p.m., while the group was at BC Colony, A1, A2, and Prasad returned armed with iron rods and knives, with an alleged intention kill. They attacked Karri Ajay, causing injuries to his head. The remaining members fled the scene. fearing for their lives.

#4. Heard. Perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are pursuing their studies and they are aged about 19 and 21 years respectively. On execution of PT Warrant, the petitioners were produced on 03.03.2025 and the incident in question said to be occurred on 02.09.2024.

#5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed to grant bail to the petitioners on the ground that petitioners herein have previous crime record.

#6. Considering the age and remand period of the petitioners, this Court views that any further detention is not required to 3 conduct further investigation and hence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners herein, on the following conditions. i. The petitioners herein shall be released on executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam. ii. On release, the petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Sunday, between

10.00 AM and 01.00 PM., for a period of three (3) months. iii. The petitioners shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required and that they shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses.

#7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. SDI- K.SRINIVASA RAJU STRAR ASSISTANT;;^ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// F To,

#1. The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District

#2. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District

#3. The Station House Officer, Narsipatnam town Police Station, Anakapallf District

#4. One CC to SRI. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

#6. One spare copy PSR HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED: 02/05/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.441 Oof 2025 ALLOWED

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 437, 439; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 480, 483; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 3(5), 109, 115(2).

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 02 May 2025. The bench was T MALLIKARJUNA, T MALLIKARJUNA RAO.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments