ORDER : Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. These five criminal petitions, which were taken up for hearing analogously, are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of the same crime. 2. Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , [The BNSS] by the Petitioners/Accused for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.42 of 2025 of Kothacheruvu Urban Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 117(1), 191(1), 118(1), 109(1), 74, 326(1), 329(3) read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , [The BNS]. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.06.2025 at about 1:30 p.m., at in a house site plot, measuring 7.65 cents in Sy.No.446, Kothacheruvu Village and Mandal, the accused unlawfully assembled armed with sticks by committing criminal trespass, and attacked the complainant, her son Sagar Reddy, and labourers engaged in cleaning and fencing the site. Accused Nos.1 and 2, along with their followers came in two vehicles, assaulted Sagar Reddy with intent to kill, caused him severe injuries. In that melee, one Muthylamma, who accompanied the complainant, was beaten, thrown down, and insulted. Five others from the complainant’s side also sustained injuries and the accused threatened them with dire consequences. A vehicle belonging to the complainant was also damaged while committing the offences. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 4. Sri P. Veera Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Sri Akurathi Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case and asserts that no offences, as alleged in the report lodged by the de-facto complainant, have been committed by the petitioners. It is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families, and any coercive action, including arrest, would result in grave and irreparable hardship to their dependent family members. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are a law-abiding citizen with a permanent place of residence and are willing to comply with any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioners undertake to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assure the Court of their continued presence as and when required. 5. The Petitioners undertake to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assure the Court of their continued presence as and when required. 5. Sri P. Veera Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners also submits that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioners and that custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioners have already extended full cooperation to the Investigating Officer and there exists no reasonable apprehension of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. 6. Sri P. Veera Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, further submits that a counter case was lodged by one of the accused in the instant crime, which was registered as FIR No.43 of 2025 of Kothacheruvu Urban Police Station. In that case, the complainant succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital. Ironically, the police have not altered the section of law so far. It is further submitted that Thirumala Reddigari Suseela, the de-facto complainant, is the vendor of the disputed property, and that Morimiseety Mahalakshmi is the purchaser of the said property under a sale deed dated 11.01.2024. The de-facto complainant and accused No.2 had earlier entered into an agreement of sale for a consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-, under which the de-facto complainant received Rs.30,00,000/- on the date of the agreement and the balance of Rs.20,00,000/- was agreed to be paid by accused No.2 within one and half years, i.e., on or before 10.06.2025. The de- facto complainant, in turn, undertook to execute and register the sale deed in favour of accused No.2. It is further submitted that possession of the disputed property was also delivered pursuant to the said agreement of sale. The learned Senior Counsel contends that, under the guise of the aforesaid agreement of sale, the dispute is purely of a civil nature, but the de-facto complainant has given it the colour of a criminal case and it is prayed to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused, in the interest of justice and equity. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 6. Per contra, Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and sensitive stage, and that custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is indispensable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 6. Per contra, Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and sensitive stage, and that custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is indispensable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioners on pre-arrest bail at this juncture would seriously impede the investigative process, as there exists a grave apprehension that the Petitioners may not extend requisite cooperation and may attempt to evade the due process of law. 7. Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the Petitioners, if granted the relief sought, may exert undue influence upon material witnesses or tamper with incriminating evidence, thereby vitiating the integrity of the investigation and obstructing the course of justice. It is further submitted that 28 accused persons brutally attacked nine individuals. The accused, wielding dangerous weapons, not only caused hurt and grievous hurt but also attempted to take away the lives of the victims and tried to extort immovable property. Even if a civil dispute was pending between the parties, the accused were not supposed to take the law into their own hands, yet they inflicted severe injuries. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are brothers, and there are nearly 60 cases pending against them. They are habitual offenders. As regards Accused No.30, there are specific overt acts attributed to him. In total, there are nine victims in the case. L.Ws.3 and 4 suffered grievous injuries, while the other seven witnesses sustained simple injuries. The brutal attack committed by the petitioners and other accused was video-graphed by L.W.10. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the potential prejudice to a fair and impartial inquiry, it is prayed that the instant application be dismissed in the interest of justice and to safeguard the sanctity of the investigative process. 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 Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 10. 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 Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 10. As seen from the record, an agreement of sale dated 11.01.2025 was purportedly entered into between the de-facto complainant, T. Suseela, as vendor, and accused No.2, M. Mahalakshmi, as vendee. An amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was allegedly paid by accused No.2 to the de-facto complainant, and the balance of Rs.20,00,000/- was agreed to be paid on or before 10.06.2025. However, in the report lodged by the de-facto complainant on 07.06.2025, she contends that about five years ago she had already paid the total sale consideration in respect of Ac.7.65 cents of land in Sy.No.446 and had obtained a registered document from accused No.2. It is further stated that on 07.06.2025, when the de-facto complainant went to the said land along with her son, Sagar Reddy, and certain labourers for the purpose of erecting fencing, the petitioners and other accused, armed with deadly weapons, trespassed into the land with an intention to kill the son of the de-facto complainant. In the course of the incident, accused No.1 allegedly caused grievous injuries. A woman by name Muthyalamma, who had accompanied the de-facto complainant, was also brutally beaten, pushed to the ground, trampled upon, and sustained severe bleeding injuries. Other persons present also received injuries. The report of the de-facto complainant was registered as a case in FIR No.42 of 2025. 11. It is alleged by the prosecution, and also as seen from the record that L.W.1 Thirumala Reddigari Suseela, L.W.2 Thirumala Reddigari Hema Sagar, L.W.5 Aturi Balakrishna, L.W.6 Yelagonda Kasi Viswanath, L.W.7 Gujjala Venkata Ramanamma, L.W.8 Mannila Syamala and L.W.9 Sake Muthyalamma suffered simple injuries. L.W.3 Yeruka Muthyalamma and L.W.4 Nandam Balakrishna suffered grievous injuries. 12. As seen from the statements of L.Ws.1 to 15, L.Ws.1 to 9 were severely beaten by the accused with dangerous weapons. L.Ws.10 and 11 recorded a video of the entire alleged incident using their mobile phones. It is noted that there are specific overt acts attributed to Accused Nos. 1, 5 to 9, 12 to 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, and 29. L.Ws.10 and 11 recorded a video of the entire alleged incident using their mobile phones. It is noted that there are specific overt acts attributed to Accused Nos. 1, 5 to 9, 12 to 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, and 29. Therefore, the request for grant of pre-arrest bail for the aforementioned accused is neither convincing nor reasonable. Hence, their request for pre-arrest bail is rejected. Accused Nos.10, 11, 22, 27 & 28 have not approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled the Petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, 17, 19, 24, 26 inasmuch as there were no specific overt acts reported against them. The request for grant of pre- arrest bail for Accused Nos.1, 5 to 9, 12 to 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, and 29 is rejected as there are specific overt acts reported against them. CONCLUSION : 14. In the result, the Criminal Petition No.6013 of 2025 is partly allowed, Criminal Petition Nos.6103, 6551, 6616 and 7977 of 2025 are allowed with the following stringent conditions: i. In the event of arrest of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, 17, 19, 24, and 26, they shall be enlarged on bail subject to they executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, 17, 19, 24, and 26 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 4, 17, 19, 24, and 26 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, 17, 19, 24, and 26 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, 17, 19, 24, and 26 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, 17, 19, 24, and 26 shall surrender their passport, if any, to the investigating officer. v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, 17, 19, 24, and 26 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, 17, 19, 24, and 26 shall surrender their passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.