ORDER : 1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.215 of 2025 of Giddalur Police Station, Prakasam District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(3), 109(1) read with 196 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 25.08.2025 at 18.30 hrs the defacto complainant brought Ganesh idol and reached Ramalayam Temple in Doddampalli Village. There the Accused No.1 to 11 forming into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons to attack the defacto complainant and others with an intention to kill them. The defacto complainant and others were bursting crackers to bring down the Ganesh idol from the tractor, but the crackers exploded and did not fell on the Accused. As if it had fallen on the Accused, according to their plan in advance, the Accused No.1 was taken the axe and beat the defacto complainant on his head and caused grievous injury. On seeing, LWs 2 to 6 obstructed the Accused, suddenly the Accused Nos. 2 to 11 beat them with sticks, rod with an intention to kill them. Hence the above case was registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Ch. Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking him to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. 4. It is further contended that even though a case was registered based on the complaint lodged by the one of the Accused, the Police have not taken any action against the Accused therein. There is a political rivalry in between the Petitioner and other Accused with defacto complainant and other persons. The incident was not a pre-mediated incident, it occurred on a spur of moment. There was no plan to attack. The injuries are not fatal one. Wound Certificates have been received. There is a political rivalry in between the Petitioner and other Accused with defacto complainant and other persons. The incident was not a pre-mediated incident, it occurred on a spur of moment. There was no plan to attack. The injuries are not fatal one. Wound Certificates have been received. Section 109 of ‘the BNS’ would not be applicable to the facts of the case against the Petitioner. Only omnibus allegations are levelled against the Petitioner. There are no specific overt acts. 5. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation so far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant further custodial detention, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the Petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 6. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the Petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the Petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the Petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that even though in the report lodged by the defacto complainant, there are omnibus allegations against the Petitioner, in Section 161 of ‘the Cr.P.C’ Statement, the defacto complainant clearly attributed specific overt acts against the Petitioner and others. He clearly stated that which Accused beat, which victim with which weapon. Some more witnesses are to be examined and material objects to be seized. Wound Certificates are yet to be received. Investigation is at progressive stage. At this stage, enlarging the Petitioner on bail would not only imped the investigation, but also creates law and order problem in the Village. Some more witnesses are to be examined and material objects to be seized. Wound Certificates are yet to be received. Investigation is at progressive stage. At this stage, enlarging the Petitioner on bail would not only imped the investigation, but also creates law and order problem in the Village. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the progress of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 9. 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: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 10. The case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner/ Accused No.2, who is prime Accused with the assistance of other Accused attacked the son of the defacto complainant with rods and sticks and caused grievous injury. Accused No.1 caused grievous injury with an axe on the head of the defacto complainant. There are altogether 11 Accused, who allegedly attacked the son of the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant and other persons. Thus in total six injured. The Petitioner belongs to YSR Congress Party, whereas, the defacto complainant belongs to Telugu Desam Party. One of the Accused lodged a report, it was registered as case in Crime No.216 of 2025. The defacto complainant report was lodged and registered as Crime No. 215 of 2025. Thus there is a case and counter case in between the group of defacto complainant and the Petitioner. There are serious disputes between the parties. 11. The investigation is at nascent stage, some more witnesses are to be examined and some more wound certificates are to be received. If the Petitioner is enlarged on bail at this juncture, he would create law and order problem in the village. 12. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner and other Accused received only simple injuries. No arrest were made in Crime No.216 of 2025. 13. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the Petitioner and other Accused are aggressors in this case. 12. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner and other Accused received only simple injuries. No arrest were made in Crime No.216 of 2025. 13. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the Petitioner and other Accused are aggressors in this case. Be that as it may, so far 10 witnesses have been examined, some more witnesses have to be examined in this case and the material objects have to be seized. The Petitioner was arrested on 26.08.2025. He has been in the judicial custody for the past 26 days only. At this juncture, enlarging the Petitioner on bail would cause serious impediment to progress of the investigation. Hence, there are no merits in the Petition for the present. Therefore, the Petition is liable to be dismissed. CONCLUSION: 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.