ORDER : (V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.) : Criminal Petition No.5282 of 2024, under Section 482 of BNSS, is filed by the petitioner/A1 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.120 of 2024 of Inkollu Police Station, Bapatla District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 118(1) read with 3(5) of BNS. 2. Criminal Petition No.6005 of 2024, under Section 482 of BNSS, is filed by the petitioner/A2 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.120 of 2024 of Inkollu Police Station, Bapatla District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 118(1) read with 3(5) of BNS. 3. Heard Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, the learned counsel for petitioners and Sri S.S.N.Moorthy, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. 4. Perused the record. 5. This is a case of an offence against the human body. On 03.07.2024 during daytime at about 10.30 am on Parchuru-Inkollu road at a road margin, the victim was speaking on phone. A1 and A2 coming on a motor bike noticed him and stopped the bike and reached him and shouted at him for sending complaints against them and sending the information to the journalists against them. There were sticks lying around there and both the accused picked up those sticks and indiscriminately beat the victim causing several injuries on his body. Having beaten him, the accused left him there and went away. The relatives of victim admitted him in the hospital. There his statement was recorded by police and that was registered as FIR.No.120 of 2024 on 04.07.2024 at about 01.00 pm. 6. By the present petitions, A1 and A2 seek bail in anticipation. The grounds urged in the bail petitions are that they are innocents and there are no specific overt acts against them and the victim was discharged from the hospital and in pursuance of earlier civil disputes between A1 and the victim, the present false case is foisted. A1 filed O.S.No.72 of 2020 as against the victim seeking for recovery of money based on a promissory note and the said case is pending before learned Junior Civil Judge, Parchuru. 7. Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, the learned counsel for petitioners urges that there is a delay of 261/2 hours in lodging the FIR. The police station was only at a distance of 2km from the scene of offence. 7. Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, the learned counsel for petitioners urges that there is a delay of 261/2 hours in lodging the FIR. The police station was only at a distance of 2km from the scene of offence. While there were several hospitals, the victim allegedly got admitted at a hospital which is 30 Km away from the scene of offence. Even according to the allegations in the FIR, it was a chance encounter. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and the investigation is almost over and therefore the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail. 8. The victim/ de facto complainant filed I.A.No.2 of 2024 seeking his impleadment in each of the petitions and after due hearing, the same were allowed and he was added as respondent No.2 in each of the petitions. On behalf of respondent No.2, counter affidavits were filed opposing the bail in anticipation. It is stated that after due medical examination, respondent No.2 was found with several injuries on his body and one of them was dislocation of shoulder which was diagnosed as grievous in nature and accordingly, the investigating officer filed a memo before the learned Magistrate seeking alteration of Sections of law. That, one of the offences alleged against the petitioners is under Section 118(2) of the BNS for which the punishment provided is for imprisonment of life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend upto ten years and shall also be liable for fine. It is further mentioned that A1 filed several false suits against the victim and his wife based on forged promissory notes and the answering respondent contested them. It is further stated that the petitioners and this respondent belonged to different political parties and the party that was supported by this respondent won the elections and came into power and that caused grudge in the minds of the accused. In pursuance of that grudge, they attacked him causing grievous hurt. After obtaining interim protection from this court, these petitioners were threatening the victim/respondent. 9. Sri S.S.N.Moorthy, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 urges this court not to accept the prayers of the petitioners. 10. In pursuance of that grudge, they attacked him causing grievous hurt. After obtaining interim protection from this court, these petitioners were threatening the victim/respondent. 9. Sri S.S.N.Moorthy, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 urges this court not to accept the prayers of the petitioners. 10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State argued that this is a case of serious bodily hurt with specific overt acts alleged against the petitioners and the investigation is still pending and in cases of this nature anticipatory bail may not be granted. 11. On considering the facts and submissions on both sides, it is to be noticed that there is a delay of 261/2 hours in lodging the FIR. However, it has to be kept in mind that a person being attacked and suffered several injuries, one among them was a serious injury of fracture would first require medical attention. As per the contents of the FIR, the victim resorted to it as he first went to hospital and obtained treatment to his injuries. That being a natural course of conduct, one cannot find fault with it. While he was at hospital, the police having received the information reached there and recorded his statement and then registered FIR. Therefore, the circumstances do not make one to think that there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. As per the record, the victim was first admitted in Government Hospital, Chirala. Simply because, there are other hospitals around the area do not mean that the victim was expected to select only one of such hospitals and not a Government hospital which is at a distance of 30 Km. Therefore, the questions raised by the petitioner about delay in lodging the FIR and not choosing of hospital around the area have no substance. 12. As the medical record would indicate there is serious fracture of the wrist and the averments in the FIR clearly show this petitioner along with one other person gathered sticks available around and attacked him and caused injuries on him. Thus, the contention that there are no specific overt acts alleged against the petitioners is against the facts on record. 13. It is undisputed on both sides that the accused and the victim belonged to different political parties and there are suits pending between them. All that form part of motive. Nothing more is needed to be stated on that aspect. 13. It is undisputed on both sides that the accused and the victim belonged to different political parties and there are suits pending between them. All that form part of motive. Nothing more is needed to be stated on that aspect. Considering the nature of the offence and the serious injuries suffered by the petitioners, this court is of the opinion that this is not fit case for anticipatory bail. 14. In the result, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.