C Pavan Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the Petitioner/Accused No.5 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.28 of 2026 of SUV Campus Urban Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 118(1), 109(1), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNS‟).

Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 10.03.2026 at about 7:30 p.m., near the Railway Gate adjoining SPW Degree College, Tirupati, the complainant B.Jaswanth, while proceeding on a motorcycle with his friend Tulasi, was intercepted and violently attacked by the accused Jayaprakash, Prudhvi, Sameer, Pavan and others, acting under the directions of Rohit Pawan, with whom the complainant had prior disputes. It is alleged that the accused attempted to strike the complainant‟s head with a knife, causing a bleeding injury when the handle hit his scalp, and thereafter assaulted Tulasi with hands and feet. Further, accused Prudhvi endeavoured to kill the complainant by attempting to drop a large stone upon his head, which was prevented by the timely intervention of Karthik and other passersby. The assailants fled the scene after issuing dire death threats.

Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in Cr. No.28/2026 due to prior rivalry, the FIR contains vague omnibus allegations and does not attribute any specific overt act causing injury to the Petitioner,only an alleged attempt to pick up a stone, there is an unexplained 19‑hour delay in lodging the complaint which casts doubt on its veracity, the Petitioner is a fourth‑year B.Tech student with no criminal antecedents whose career will suffer irreparable harm if arrested, and he is ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner.

Per contra, Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law and it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:

As seen from the record, the allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.5 is that he tried to throw a stone on the head of the de-facto complainant and tried to kill him. The stone is not seized by the Investigating Officer. The de-facto complainant is also not clear whether there was any locus poenitentiae on the part of the Petitioner/Accused No.5 to withdraw from the alleged action. Unless some specific attempt is made by the Petitioner, one cannot come to a conclusion that the de-facto complainant was tried to be killed. This Court, in Crl.P.No.4456 of 2026 dated 15.06.2026 granted pre-arrest bail to the Accused No.3.

Having regard to the nature of the allegations, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.5.

In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: