CRLP/2208/2026 of J Dhanunjaya Naidu alias J DHanunjaya Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March 2026

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 petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 5 in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.37 of 2025 on the file of Tadimarri Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 351(3) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.07.2025 at about 04:30 PM, at SRS Landmark Dhaba, Dadithota Village, Tadimarri Mandal, the petitioner/A.1 along with A.2 to A.4 and others, all residents of Parnapalli Village, Lingala Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, came in three cars and picked up a quarrel with the complainant, namely Manda Ashok Kumar. It is alleged that they abused him in filthy language and assaulted him indiscriminately with sticks, causing bleeding injury to his right ear and other swelling and blunt injuries on his body. It is further alleged that A.1 criminally intimidated the complainant with dire consequences if he did not stop his business of supply of wires and pipes. The incident is stated to have occurred due to prior business-related disputes between the parties. Based on the complaint, the present crime was registered and investigation is in progress. The petitioner/A.1 is stated to be absconding since the date of the offence.

3. Heard Sri N. Phanindra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to political rivalry. It is contended that A.1 is a respectable person and Managing Partner of JKS Constructions, Ananthapuram. It is further submitted that the name of the 2nd petitioner (A.5) does not find place in the FIR and he was subsequently implicated during the course of investigation. It is also contended that the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation and are willing to furnish sufficient sureties.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that the investigation is still pending and the petitioners are yet to be arrested. It is further submitted that A.1 is the prime accused and is absconding, and if anticipatory bail is granted, there is every likelihood of the petitioners influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence.

6. Considering the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, it is evident that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature, involving assault causing injuries and criminal intimidation. The case diary indicates that the complainant sustained injuries, and the role attributed to A.1 is that of the main accused. The investigation is still pending and the petitioners have not yet been taken into custody. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding possible tampering of evidence and influencing of witnesses, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to surrender before the concerned Magistrate and file an application for regular bail within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such filing, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same on its own merits, without being influenced by any observations made in this order, and dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 24.03.2026 KKV

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2208/2026

s Date: 24.03.2026 KKV