Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/1898/2026 of Kondaveeti gopi 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: 1898/2026 Between: 1. KONDAVEETI GOPI, S/O HANUMANTHA RAO,AGED ABOUT
APHC010124092026
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. KONDAVEETI GOPI, S/O HANUMANTHA RAO,AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS,
R/O
D.NO.2-93,LAKKARAJU
GARLAPADU
VILLAGE,
SATTENAPALLI MANDAL,GUNTUR DISTRICT, NOW AT FLAT
NO.336, MAX HOUSE APARTMENTS,ALLWYN COLONY, JAGATGIRI
GUTTA, HYDERABAD.
2. KAMBAMPAATI SURESH, S/O BRAHMAIAH,AGED ABOUT 29
YEARS,
R/O
D.NO.1-183,SC
COLONY,
YERRAGUNTLAPADU
VILLAGE,PHIRANGIPURAM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATITHROUGH SHO., DUGGIRALA P.S., GUNTUR 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 pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.2 and 3 on Bail in connection with Crime No.6 of 2026 of Duggirala P.S., Guntur District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. HARINADH NIDAMANURI
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 BNSS, has been filed by the petitioners herein/Accused Nos.2 and3, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.6 of 2026 of Duggirala P.S., Guntur District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 194 of BNSS. Subsequently, the sections were altered to 103(2), 61(2), 123 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short “BNS”).
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased, son of the complainant, was living separately with his wife and children, while the complainant resided nearby; on 19.01.2026 at about 4:30 a.m., the complainant was informed by his grandson that the deceased was lying motionless, upon which he and his relatives rushed to the house and found the deceased dead with blood oozing from his right ear and injuries on his chest. Suspecting foul play due to the alleged illicit relationship of the deceased’s wife with one Gopi and prior threats, the complainant believed that she, either alone or with others, caused the death. Initially registered, the case was later altered to Section 103(2) of BNS based on the postmortem report, and during investigation, further offences under Sections 61(2), 123, and 238 of BNS were added based on the confession of the accused.
3. Heard Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3, and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 and 3 and have been implicated solely on the basis of the alleged confession statement of Accused No. 1. The allegation against the petitioners is that Accused No. 2 had illicit intimacy with Accused No. 1, and Accused No. 3 is a friend of Accused No. 2. Except for the said alleged confession, there is no direct or ocular evidence connecting the petitioners to the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, the investigation may have been completed by now, and their custodial interrogation is no longer required. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners undertake to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that investigation is at a crucial stage. It is a case of murder, wherein it is alleged that the deceased was administered sleeping tablets mixed in food. The petitioners herein are Accused Nos. 2 and 3. She would further submit that, apart from the confession of the co-accused, the investigating agency has collected CCTV footage during the course of investigation, which reveals the movements of the petitioners at the relevant point of time. It is contended that, if the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of their hampering the ongoing investigation. She finally prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, as rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the investigation is still in progress. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, the material collected so far, including the confession of the co- accused and CCTV footage showing the petitioners’ movements, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for regular bail at this stage.
7. Accordingly, this 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