CRLP/1338/2026 of Kambham Bhaskar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 1 March 2026

COMMON ORDER :

The Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity >the BNSS?) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Cr.No.32 of 2026 on the file of the Piler Police Station, Annamayya District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 333, 324(5), 329(4), 326(g), 126(2),115(2),308(5), 351(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short <BNS=).

2. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 5, and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

3. Since the subject matter of these Criminal Petitions is one and the same, at the request of the learned counsel on both sides, these petitions are heard together and passed the following common order.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.01.2026 at about 11:00 PM, near Piler-Sadum Road, H/o Doddipalli, Piler Mandal, the defacto complainant reported that A-1 to A-9 and others conspired and criminally trespassed into his land. They set fire to the complainant?s container residence, from which he managed to escape. The accused also threw out and set fire to household articles, set fire to one Anuradha?s container, from which she and her son escaped, and wrongfully restrained and assaulted the complainant. Further, they extorted money from the complainant and from Anuradha?s house, caused damage to property, and threatened them with dire consequences to vacate the land. Basing on the said report, a case in Cr.No.32 of 2026 on the file of the Piler Police Station, Annamayya District, was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 333, 324(5), 329(4), 326(g), 126(2), 115(2), 308(5), 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 to 5 and are innocent, having been falsely implicated in the alleged crime. The allegations in the FIR are vague, unsupported by credible evidence, and do not establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. There is a delay of 17 hours in lodging the report, and the FIR is silent regarding any explanation for this delay. The petitioners have no dispute or connection with the land and are strangers to the matter, lacking any knowledge or intention to commit the alleged offence. Custodial interrogation is unnecessary, as there are no specific allegations regarding recovery of property. The investigation is almost complete, with material witnesses already examined, and there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or absconding. Therefore, the arrest would serve no purpose, and the prejudice to the petitioners outweighs any benefit to the prosecution. It is further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court to ensure their presence for the investigation. Learned counsel finally prays that pre-arrest bail be granted to the petitioners.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petitions and submits that the investigation is still at a nascent stage. He further contends that there are specific allegations made against the petitioners herein, which must be taken into account. LW-6 and LW-7 are material witnesses and eyewitnesses to the incident, and their testimony is crucial for establishing the sequence of events. In addition, the prosecution has collected CCTV footage, videos, and photographs that purportedly show the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime. It is further submitted that granting pre-arrest bail at this stage could impede the ongoing investigation, as the petitioners may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. He finally submits that the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail at this stage.

7. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material on record, as rightly pointed out by the prosecution, there are specific allegations and overt acts attributed against the petitioners, and the investigation is still at a nascent stage. The investigation has revealed material evidence, including eyewitness statements, CCTV footage, videos, and photographs indicating the petitioners? involvement. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage.

8. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

___________________________________

DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 02.03.2026. UPS

Dt: 02.03.2026

UPS