AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr Y. Lakshmana Rao, J
Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the BNSS by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.543 of 2025 of Penamaluru Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 137(2), 308(5) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 the BNS.
Sri Singaluri Shanti Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant proceedings and asserts that no offence, as alleged in the complaint, has been committed by him. It is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family, and any coercive action, including arrest, would result in grave and irreparable hardship to his dependent family members. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with a permanent place of residence and is willing to comply with any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner undertakes to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assures the Court of his continued presence as and when required.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and that custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioner has already extended full cooperation to the Investigating Officer and there exists no reasonable apprehension of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence and it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in the interest of justice and equity.
Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, learned legal aid counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that there are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner. Hence, granting of pre-arrest bail is not proper and it is urged to dismiss the petition.
Per contra, Ms.P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and sensitive stage, and that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is indispensable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail at this juncture would seriously impede the investigative process, as there exists a grave apprehension that the Petitioner may not extend requisite cooperation and may attempt to evade the due process of law.
The prosecution further contends that the Petitioner, 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. Given 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.
As seen from the record, the de-facto complainant is a tenant of petitioner’s mother. There are specific allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.1. As per the statements of L.Ws.2 and 3, who are eye-witnesses and have supported the version of the de-facto complainant, the petitioner, along with four males and one female, came to the house of the de-facto complainant and repeatedly fisted him. They beat him with their hands and a belt and abused him in filthy language. They kidnapped him in a white car to a workshop in Bandar, illegally confined him, and obtained his signatures on six cheques and an e-stamp paper, and also obtained his thumb impression. The accused threatened him with dire consequences not only to his person but also to his relatives. In this case, a test identification parade is required, and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is also necessary.
In view of the specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail. Grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy, to be granted only in exceptional circumstances. It is well settled in law, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, that the grant of anticipatory bail does not amount to a charter for commission of serious offences, nor does it serve as a cloak of immunity for individuals against whom specific and prima facie cognizable allegations have been levelled. The relief under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’ is intended to safeguard personal liberty, but not to thwart the legitimate course of investigation or to protect those who are prima facie complicit in grave offences involving overt acts.
In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, coupled with the nature and gravity of the specific allegations attributed to the Petitioners, this Court finds no justifiable ground to exercise discretion under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’. The allegations prima facie discloses a serious offence warranting thorough investigation, and the Petitioners, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not merit the relief of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected.
Hence, this criminal petition is dismissed.