Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Boya Muniswamy, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 28 July, 2025
APHC010339672025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7038/2025
Between:
Boya Muniswamy, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. P NARASIMHULU
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’) Sections 480 and
483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’),
seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 8 on bail in Crime No.81
2
of 2025 of Kodumur Police Station, Kurnool District, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 189(3), 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 109, 115(2), 118(1),
351(2) read with 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘the BNS).
2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 27.04.2025, the
defacto complainant filed a report before the police stating that he, along with
his family members and other village elders, were going to the accused to
settle the problem of his cousin Suresh. A1 to A8 and some others were
holding sticks and rods and came towards the defacto complainant and others
and showed their hands at them, threatened, attacked and beat them. A1 beat
the defacto complainant with a stick on his head and caused bleeding injury.
A2 beat the defacto complainant with an iron rod and caused bleeding injury
on the left arm. When the cousin of the defacto complainant intervened, the
accused also beat him and caused bleeding injury on his head, and dumb
injury on his left arm, and they also beat the uncle of the defacto complainant
and caused bleeding injury on his head.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Perused the material on record.
4. Sri Narasimhulu Parise, the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused
Nos.1 to 8, submits that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 had not committed
3
any offence and they were falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners are
sole bread winners of their family and they were arrested on 01.05.2025.
Since then, they have been in judicial custody. Hence, he prays that the
petitioners be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,
opposed in granting of bail stating that the investigation is not completed; if the
petitioners are enlarged on bail, they would not be available for the
investigation and they would escape from the clutches of law; and urged to
dismiss the bail petition.
6. The allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioners/accused Nos.1
to 8, along with other accused, formed an unlawful assembly armed with
deadly weapons and attacked L.Ws.1 to 3. Subsequently, L.W.1 succumbed
to injuries at his residence, and L.Ws.2 and 3 sustained injuries. The wound
certificates are yet to be received.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that accused Nos.9 to 11
were granted bail by the learned trial Court. The learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor submits that since their names were not reflected in the FIR, they
were enlarged on bail. Furthermore, a learned Single Judge of this Court, in
Crl.P.No.5482 of 2025, granted anticipatory bail to accused No.12 on the
4
ground that he was implicated solely based on the confession of accused
No.1. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 were arrested on 01.05.2025 and
have been in judicial custody for the past 87 days.
8. As seen from the FIR and statements of witnesses, there are specific
overt acts attributed to accused Nos.1 and 2. The investigation is still pending,
and only 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. One person
has died, and two others have sustained injuries in the incident. The nature
and gravity of the injuries to the two injured witnesses are yet to be confirmed
by medical evidence.
9. In view of the specific overt acts attributed to petitioner Nos.1 and
2/accused Nos.1 and 2, considering the gravity of the offence and the stage of
investigation, this Court finds that it is not a fit case to grant bail at this
juncture. Accordingly, the petition as against petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused
Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed.
10. However, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations against
petitioner Nos.3 to 8/accused Nos.3 to 8, their alleged role in the offence, and
the period of detention already they have undergone in the judicial custody for
5
the past 87 days, this Court is inclined to enlarge petitioner Nos.3 to
8/accused Nos.3 to 8 on bail.
11. In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed dismissing the
petition against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 while
granting bail to petitioner Nos.3 to 8/accused Nos.3 to 8, with the following
stringent conditions:
i. The petitioner Nos.3 to 8/Accused Nos.3 to 8 shall be
enlarged on bail subject to they executing a bond for a sum of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with two
sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kurnool.
ii. The petitioner Nos.3 to 8/Accused Nos.3 to 8 shall appear
before the Station House Officer, Kodumur Police Station,
Kurnool District, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and
05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court.
iii. The petitioner Nos.3 to 8/Accused Nos.3 to 8 shall not
leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh, without prior
permission from the Investigating Officer.
iv. The petitioner Nos.3 to 8/Accused Nos.3 to 8 shall not
commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.
v. The petitioner Nos.3 to 8/Accused Nos.3 to 8 shall
cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of
6the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation
by the investigating officer as and when required.
vi. The petitioner Nos.3 to 8/Accused Nos.3 to 8 shall not,
directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to
any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 28.07.2025
SDP
7THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7038 of 2025
Date:28.07.2025
SDP
