AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.231 of 2026 of Bandar Taluk Police Station, Krishna District registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 127(2), 118(1) and 115(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).
Sri M. Solomon Raju, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed any offence. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition.
Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
As seen from the record, there are specific allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 that he picked up a stick and assaulted the de-facto complainant on his left elbow, causing injuries. It is further alleged that the Petitioner, along with the other accused, wrongfully confined the de-facto complainant in a poultry farm and physically assaulted him. In view of the specific accusation attributed against the Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, as it would amount to giving a shield, or protection or license to the Petitioner, who is alleged to have dispossessed the de-facto complainant of his vehicle by forcibly entering, snatching the keys, and driving away, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.