Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/1859/2026 of Rohith Parmar alias Rohith Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 12 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1859/2026 Between: 1. ROHITH PARMAR ALIAS ROHITH, S/O. DINESH
APHC010120162026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
Between:
1. ROHITH PARMAR ALIAS ROHITH, S/O. DINESH PARAR,AGED
ABOUT
YEARS,
OCC
AGRICULTURE,R/O.
D.NO.31-787,
GITHANJALI GALI, NAYA AAMPURA,MORENA, MADHYA PRADESH
STATE.
2. SHIVAM SINGH PARIHAR ALIAS DHEERAJ, S/O. RAMVATAR,AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,R/O.SHYAMPUR KHURD, AMBAH, MORENA,MADHYA PRADESH STATE.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANANTHAPURAM II TOWN POLICE STATION ANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioners/Accused No. 2 and 3 on bail in Crime No.262 of 2025 dated 12.12.2025, on the file of Ananthapuram II Town P.S., Ananthapuram District, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. K NARSI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
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, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.262 of 2025 dated 12.12.2025, on the file of Ananthapuram II Town P.S., Ananthapuram District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1B)(b), 25(1B)(a) and 25(1AA) of Arms Act.
2. Heard Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakhmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.12.2025, at 02.00 pm, on credible information about illegal possession of fire arm with live catridges and lethal weapons, the Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu II Town P.S., along with staff and mediators after obtaining search warrant from superior officer, went to the house of A1 and found possession of Indian made Pistol .32 with 21 rounds and a sword, the same were seized under the cover of mediators’ report. A1 has no valid license to possess the fire arm and sword. On enquiry, he confessed that he purchased the firearms from A2 and A3 who brought the same from Gwalior of Madhya Pradesh State and sword through online. A case was registered and investigated into and A1 was released by serving notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS. Again on 25.12.2025, on receipt of credible information, the police went to Parasannaynapalli Railway Station, and arrested A1 to A3 and seized 4 pistols and one empty magazine and 9 live catridges, 3 used catridges.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are Accused Nos. 2 and 3. They are innocent of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed any offence as alleged. The petitioners were arrested on 25.12.2025 and since then, they have been in judicial custody. The statutory period has also expired. He further submits that Accused No. 1 has already been released on regular bail vide order dated 06.02.2026 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu. The petitioners undertake to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and are ready to furnish adequate sureties to the satisfaction of this Court. He finally prays to allow the petition.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that the investigation has not yet completed. She would further submit that the petitioners are residents of Madhya Pradesh, and if released on bail, it would be difficult for the prosecution to secure their presence. She would further submit that the allegations against Accused No. 1 and the present petitioners, i.e., Accused Nos. 2 and 3, are distinct, and the specific allegation against the petitioners is that they sold four (4) pistols and one empty magazine. She finally prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Considering the submissions and upon a fair consideration of the material placed before this Court, the investigation is still pending and there is some force in the contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that it would be very difficult for the prosecution to secure the presence of the petitioners if they are released on bail. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 13.03.2026. UPS
Dt.13.03.2026
UPS