Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/2148/2026 of Sadik Vali Alias Pandu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Between: 1. SADIK VALI ALIAS PANDU, S/O SHAIK HAJI BABA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,OCC
APHC010140702026
IN THE
(
TUESDAY,THE
TWO T
THE HONOURABLE D
CRIMIN
Between:
1. SADIK VALI ALI
ABOUT 26 YE
9,PATHAKOTA,
DISTRICT.
1. THE STATE O
Tadipatri Town P
of Andhra Prade
Petition under Se
BNSS
praying
tha
Memorandum of G
Courtpleased to en
anticipatory bail in the
No. 24 of 2026 on
Anantapur District, d
pass
Counsel for the Petit
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
E TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH
THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
R JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI P
NAL PETITION NO: 2148/2026
IAS PANDU, S/O SHAIK HAJI BABA, A
EARS,OCC BUSINESS R/O D.NO.4
TADIPATH
TOWN,ANANTAPU
...PETITIONER/ACCU
AND
OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through
P.SRep. by its Public Prosecutor,High
eshAt Amaravati.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAIN
ection 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 5
t
in the
circumstances
stated
in
Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
nlarge the petitioner/Accused No.
e event of his arrest in connection with C
n the file of Tadipatri Town Police St
during the pendency of inquiry and tria
tioner/accused:
PRATAPA
AGED
4/265-
URAM
USED
SHO
Court
NANT
528 of
n
the
High
1 on
Crime
tation,
l, and
1.K MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2148/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/Accused No.1 in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.24 of 2026 on the file of Tadipatri Town Police Station, Anantapuram District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the alleged incident pertains to an attempt to murder that occurred on 03.01.2026 at about 09:30 PM at Rayachuri Street, Tadipatri Town, which was reported on 17.01.2026. It is alleged that the petitioner/A1 along with A2, A3 and others attacked the de-facto complainant, namely Makandar Arif Basha, with an intention to kill him by throwing stones and using weapons, resulting in injuries to the complainant, his mother, and others. The incident is stated to have arisen out of previous enmity.
3. Heard Sri K. Mallikarjuna Moorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry. It is contended that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner and that the complaint is an afterthought, as there is a delay in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted that even if the allegations are taken at face value, they would not attract the offence alleged. The petitioner also submits that no wound certificates or MLC reports have been filed and the allegations are omnibus in nature. It is further contended that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, the sole breadwinner of his family, and is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition stating that the investigation is still in progress, wound certificates are yet to be received, and crucial witnesses are yet to be examined. It is contended that if anticipatory bail is granted, there is a likelihood of the petitioner tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.
6. Considering the submissions made on either side and perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that prima facie accusations are made out against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 109(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which is a serious offence punishable with imprisonment for life. The record discloses specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner, including causing injuries to the complainant and others. It is also noted that the investigation is still pending, material evidence such as wound certificates is yet to be collected, and certain witnesses are yet to be examined. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this juncture.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date: 24.03.2026 KKV
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2148/2026
Date: 24.03.2026 KKV