Andhra Pradesh HC: Simple Injury Findings and Prolonged Custody Merit Bail Under BNSS

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has underscored the primacy of personal liberty by granting bail to accused individuals in judicial custody for 76 days after medical evidence confirmed the victim sustained only simple injuries. This ruling reinforces the judicial inclination toward release when investigation progress and the nature of injuries no longer justify continued incarceration under the new criminal codes.

In a proceeding before the High Court, Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao adjudicated a criminal petition filed by two individuals seeking enlargement on bail for alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The bench evaluated the shift in circumstances since the previous dismissal of their bail applications, specifically focusing on the medical reports and the duration of their detention.

Key Takeaways

Impact of Medical Evidence

Detailed wound certificates revealing simple rather than grievous injuries significantly weigh in favor of the accused during bail considerations.

Custody Duration as a Factor

Extended judicial custody, in this case spanning 76 days, serves as a compelling ground for release when the primary investigation reaches a stable stage.

Balancing Liberty and Investigation

Stringent conditions, including geographical restrictions and periodic reporting, allow courts to protect the investigative process without depriving citizens of their liberty.

Court Observations on Changed Circumstances

The Court noted that while a previous bail application had been dismissed, the emergence of the wound certificate constituted a material change in circumstances. The bench observed that the Petitioners were permanent residents with fixed abodes, minimizing the risk of flight or evasion of justice.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The wound certificate has been received, which reveals that the de-facto complainant/victim suffered only simple injuries. The Petitioners were arrested on 22.07.2026 and have been in judicial custody for the past 76 days. The Petitioners are permanent residents of Tsundupalli Town and Mandal. They have got fixed abode. If the Petitioners are enlarged on bail, subject to stringent conditions, there is no likelihood of their interfering with the investigation, threatening the witnesses, or tampering with the evidence."

Mandatory Directions Issued

The Court has following directions:

"i. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Raychoti.

ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the Charge Sheet.

iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.

vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 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.

vii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If they claim that they do not possess passports, they shall submit affidavits to that effect before the Investigating Officer."

Ratio

The court held that when the nature of injuries is simple and the accused have undergone substantial judicial custody with a fixed place of residence, bail should be granted under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provided stringent conditions are imposed to ensure cooperation with the ongoing investigation and to prevent witness tampering.

Background

The case originated from Crime No. 55 of 2026 at Tsundupalli Police Station, where the petitioners were charged under Sections 126(2), 308(2), and 109(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution vehemently opposed the bail, arguing that the investigation was still underway and that the petitioners might abscond or hamper the examination of material witnesses. The petitioners, however, maintained their innocence, claiming false implication and highlighting their status as sole breadwinners. After reviewing the case diary and the newly submitted wound certificate, the High Court determined that the nature of the allegations and the stage of the investigation warranted a conditional release, thereby allowing the criminal petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8681/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:42119
Case Title: Gounipalli Adi Narayana And Another V. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sudeepthi Potluri, Counsel
For the Respondent(s): Public Prosecutor; Mr. A. Sai Rohith, Assistant Public Prosecutor

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 17805