The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. A. ARAVIND REDDY, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. SYED YASAR MAMOOM, Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behatf of the sote Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE J. SREE:I TVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7874 of 2'l 15 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under ll :ction 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (fot short tsNSSJ seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/ac < used No.1 in Crime No.66 of 2025 on the frle of the P.S. Marr:6 .rda, Nalgonda District, registered for the offences punishable r .nder Sections 1O9 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanr tl:.a,2023 (for short 'BNS').

2. The case o[ prosecution in brief is that c e 13.05.2025, father of the dc-facto complainant was attacl I d by accused No. 1 ancl ano[her, while he was on ris bike to Khudhabakshapally. The accused allegedly kicJ< :d and bealen her [ather, u,hile the villagers rescued him. The de-facto complai.nanL sought hrst aid from a doctor alr I later sought legal action. Her tather and other family merrt ers have land disputcs since past two years, and the accus( ( attacked her father with an intent to kilI him. Basing on tlr : same, Crime No.66 of 2025 u,as registered.

3. Hearcl Mr. A. Aravind Reddy, learned rx unsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learr ed Additional Public Prosccutor lor the respondent-State. i I I 2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence arrd he was falsely implicated in the above crime. He further submitted that there are property disputes between the petitioner and the de facto complainant in respect of boundaries. To settle the said property disputes the de facto complainant demand a huge amount of Rs.80,00,OO0/ -. When the petitioner failed to pay that amount he tried to grab the property of the petitioner, at that stage petitioner resisted the de facto complainant. He further submitted that the father of the de facto complainant is extremist and he was involved in several crimes. Even according to thc allegations made in the complaint, the victim has not sustained any grievous injuries and ingredients under Section 109 of BNS are not attracted. He further submitted that the dc facto complainant removed the boundary stones on 24.06.2025 and his hcalth condition is very good and he himself removed the boundary stones in respect of the disputed property on

24.06.2025. In support of his contention, learned counsel lor the petitioner frled two photographs annexed along r.vith criminal petition at page Nos.14 and 15. He further submitted that the petitioner is not having any other criminal anteccdents and he is the only breadwinner of his family and he shalt abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court, and he 3 is ready to cooperate with the investigation, if z ny. Hence, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Put,l c Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has committed grz ve offence and the victim sustained grievous injuries includinlg head injury in the hands of the petitioner and the investigat < n is at thresh hold. He furthcr submitted that petitioner is r iso accused in Crime No.222 of 2024. At this stage, if the peti'i rner is granted anticipatory bail, he will interfere vrith the inves,i 1ation and also influence the \r,ltnesses. He further subnt tted that the petitioner has :rpproached this Court and filed I d.P.No.67O6 of 2025 seeking anrrcipatory bail and the same wa s dismissed by this court on | 2.06.2025 and the now the p :titioner again approachcd this Court and filed the present <'r iminal petition with very samc srounds arnd hence the petition,: is not entitled for grant r>[ antir:ipatory bail and prayed to dismu s the petition.

6. Having considered the rival submissior s made by the respectivc partics eind after perusal of the mate r al available on record, it rcvcals thaL thc learned Additional Pu blic Prosecutor has placcd tt-rc meclical case record of de fa: o complainant dated 12-O5.2025 issued by Lifecare Institt te of Medical Sciences n,hcrein it clearly shows that the vi :tim sustained grievous injurrcs. It is not in dispute the petitioner had I \ 4 approached this Court and filed Criminal Petition No.67O6 of 2025 for grant of anticipatory bail and this Court dismissed the same on 12.06.2025. In so far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the victim has not sustained any injuries and his hea-lth condition is good by relying upon the photographs/documents which are hled along with present criminal petition at page Nos.14 and 15, do not hold good since the prosecution placed the medical recorci pertaining to victim evidencing that victim sustained injuries which are grievous in nature.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the gravit5r of the offence, this Court is not inclined Lo grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed To. //TRUE COPY// SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR .- (, SECTION OFFICER 1 The Station House Officer, Marriguda Police Station, Nalgonda Dist 2 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3 One CC to Mr A. ARAVIND REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI 4 Two CD Copies b. HIGH COURT DATED: 0310712025 I ORDER CRLP.No.7B74 ot 2025 .a --,'"-__ -,. rr-'f .,,,-' ":::i- _ t j ia il.>..... Li .. .,' .: i - _t: ,t t - - /- .-i,'-, ' .:.ir,'.i,'.il ---_ Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is E,ismissed. f l0