COMMON ORDER: The Criminal Petition No.7858 of 2025 was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking grant of pre-arrest bail for the Petitioner/Accused No.6. The Criminal Petition No.7947 of 2025 filed under Sections 480 & 483 of ‘the BNSS’ seeking for grant of regular bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 who have been languishing in the jail. Since the two cases arise out of the one crime, it is felt convenient to dispose of the two Criminal Petitions by this common order. 2. Facts, in brief, of the prosecution are that on 10.06.2025 at about 11:00 a.m., an incident involving wrongful restraint and culpable homicide not amounting to murder occurred at Survey No.95-2, Plot No. 6, situated in Nalla Narsingaiah Colony, Rachanapalli Village, Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal. The alleged offence took place while the complainant, Reddivaari Nagaraju, and his father, the deceased Reddyvari Konaiah, aged 76 years, were engaged in laying measurements on their house site. It is alleged that the accused persons, namely (1) Parnapalli Gangadhar, (2) Pamapalli Rajamma, wife of P.Gangadhar, (3) Parnapalli Lakshmi Prasad, son of P.Gangadhar, (4) Pamapalli Nagasai, son of P.Gangadhar, (5) Ramu, and (6) Subbanna, all residents of Rachanapalli Village, Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal, in furtherance of a common intention, wrongfully restrained the complainant and the deceased. During the said restraint, the accused persons picked up a quarrel with them and, in the course of such altercation, intentionally pushed the deceased with the knowledge that he would fall and sustain grievous injury or death. As a result of such push, the deceased fell to the ground and sustained a fatal injury to the posterior region of his head. He was immediately shifted in an auto-rickshaw to the Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu, where the attending medical personnel examined him and declared him "brought dead" at 12:20 p.m. on the same day. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. Sri M.V.Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that there was no element of guilty intention of doing away the life of the father of the de-facto complainant, even as seen from the averments of the FIR. It is further submitted that Accused Nos.1 to 5 have been in judicial custody for the past 60 days. 4. Sri M.V.Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that there was no element of guilty intention of doing away the life of the father of the de-facto complainant, even as seen from the averments of the FIR. It is further submitted that Accused Nos.1 to 5 have been in judicial custody for the past 60 days. There are land disputes in between the Petitioners and the deceased and his relatives. The alleged incident happened in the course of measuring the disputed land by the surveyor and it is urged to enlarge Accused Nos.1 to 5 on bail and grant pre-arrest bail to Accused No.6, who is aged about 84 years. 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that there are specific overt acts attributed against Accused Nos.1 & 2 who knew pretty well the deceased was aged about 76 years, he was pushed down with force resulting in the death of the father of the de-facto complainant and it is urged to dismiss these Petitions submitting that the investigation is not yet completed and the accusation was well founded against the Petitioners as L.Ws.5 to 7 who are the independent mediators supported the case of the prosecution. 6. As seen from the averments of the report submitted by the de-facto complainant at about 11.00 a.m., on 10.06.2025, when the deceased, de-facto complainant and his relatives were getting surveyed the land, the Petitioners came into the land, picked up quarrel with the de-facto complainant and his men. Accused Nos.1 & 2 pushed down with force the father of the de-facto complainant. As a result, he fell down and sustained severe blood injuries to his back portion of the head. He was immediately taken to the hospital, but he was declared brought dead. In fact, the father of the de-facto complainant is aged about 76 years. The Petitioner in Crl.P.No.7858 of 2025/Accused No.6 is aged about 84 years. There is no reference in the FIR and other documents that Accused Nos.1 & 2 and others with an intention to cause the death of father of the de-facto complainant pushed down him with force. There are no specific overt acts attributed against Accused No.6, let alone the overt acts. 7. There is no reference in the FIR and other documents that Accused Nos.1 & 2 and others with an intention to cause the death of father of the de-facto complainant pushed down him with force. There are no specific overt acts attributed against Accused No.6, let alone the overt acts. 7. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against Accused No.6, his extreme old age and his exact alleged role played in this case, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to Accused No.6 with the following conditions: i. In the event of their arrest, the Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall be enlarged on bail subject to 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 arresting police officials. ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required, and fully cooperate with the Investigating Officer. iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not leave the limits of the State without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. v. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claim that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 8. In so far as the allegations levelled against Accused Nos.1 to 5, in particular Accused Nos.1 & 2, they had allegedly gone to the disputed land when the de-facto complainant, his father and others were getting the land surveyed. Accused Nos.1 & 2 without hearing the words of the de-facto complainant and his father pushed him down forcibly and as a result he died. Petitioner No.3/Accused No.3 is a student aged about 24 years, Petitioner No.4/Accused No.4 is a software engineer aged about 27 years, Petitioner No.5/Accused No.5 is aged about 45 years and a private employee. There are no specific overt acts attributed against them. Hence, they are entitled for grant of bail. 9. Be that as it may, Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 and Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 were arrested on 12.06.2025 and they have been in judicial custody for the past 60 days. There is no elements of mens rea of killing the father of the de-facto complainant on the part of Petitioner Nos.1 & 2. Hence, they are entitled for grant of bail. 9. Be that as it may, Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 and Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 were arrested on 12.06.2025 and they have been in judicial custody for the past 60 days. There is no elements of mens rea of killing the father of the de-facto complainant on the part of Petitioner Nos.1 & 2. Of course, they were required to consider the age of the de-facto complainant as 76 years old man before going to push down him forcefully. 10. Considering the nature and gravity of the case, the stage of the investigation, alleged role played by the Petitioner No.s1 to 5/Accused Nos.1 to 5 and the period of detention they have been undergoing in the judicial custody, this Court inclines to enlarge them on regular bail with the following conditions: i. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P & E), Ananthapuramu. ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall appear before the Investigating Officer, on every second Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till the filing of the chargesheet. iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall not leave the limits of the state without prior permission from the Investigation Officer. v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claims that they do not have passports, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 11. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed.