Prolonged Custody and Simple Injuries Lead Andhra Pradesh HC to Grant Bail

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has underscored the importance of liberty in cases involving non-grievous injuries, granting bail to six accused persons who had spent 44 days in judicial custody for allegedly simple injuries. This ruling reinforces the principle that where investigation is significantly advanced and the accused have deep roots in the community, continued incarceration serves no punitive purpose before trial.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao presided over the matter, hearing a petition filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners sought regular bail in connection with a crime registered for serious offences involving attempt to murder and common intention.

Key Takeaways

Custody Duration vs. Injury Gravity

Incarceration for 44 days was deemed sufficient for offences where the medical evidence pointed towards only 'simple injuries,' balancing personal liberty against the nature of the crime.

Fixed Abode as Security

Being permanent residents with a fixed abode in the district served as a crucial factor in mitigating the flight risk concerns raised by the prosecution.

Stringent Conditional Liberty

While granting bail, the court imposed multi-layered restrictions, including passport surrender and geographic limits, to ensure the integrity of the ongoing investigation.

Court Observations and Directions

The Court noted that the injured party had suffered only simple injuries, as corroborated by wound certificates from both government and private medical facilities. Furthermore, the court observed that ten witnesses had already been examined and the petitioners were permanent residents of the NTR District, thus reducing the likelihood of them absconding.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "As seen from the record, the injured suffered simple injury, as per the wound certificate issued by the Government Medical Officer and also the doctor of the private hospital. So far, ten witnesses are examined... The petitioners are permanent resident of NTR District. They have got fixed abode."

The Court has the following directions:
"i. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 to 7 shall be enlarged on bail subject to each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mylavaram.

ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 to 7 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, 3 to 7 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 to 7 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.

v. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 to 7 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 to 7 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, 3 to 7 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If they claims that they does not have passports, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer."

Ratio

Bail may be granted in cases involving Sections 109(1) and 308(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 when the medical evidence suggests only simple injuries, a substantial period of judicial custody has already been served, and the accused possess a fixed place of residence, provided stringent conditions are imposed to prevent witness tampering and ensure presence during trial.

Background

The case arose from Crime No. 231 of 2026 registered at Mylavaram Police Station. The petitioners, primarily daily wage workers, were accused of offences under Sections 109(1), 308(5) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution, represented by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the bail plea, arguing that the investigation was still underway and that there was a risk of the accused absconding if released. However, the petitioners' counsel argued that they were falsely implicated and were the sole breadwinners of their families.

Taking into account that the petitioners had been in custody since August 31, 2026, and that the nature of the injuries was not life-threatening, the High Court allowed the criminal petition and ordered their release on bail subject to the aforementioned conditions.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8887/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:43854
Case Title: MADASU NAVEEN SAI AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): BABU RAO PANDIRI, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR; Mr. A. Sai Rohith, Assistant Public Prosecutor

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 17829