AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.25 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.120 of 2026 of Palamaner Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 140(2), 308(2) and 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for brevity ‘the BNS’).
Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
Mr.K.V.Raghu Veer, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is having a three-month-old baby and is required to take care of the child. The role of the Petitioner came to light based on the confession of Accused No.3. The name of the Petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR. The allegations levelled against the Petitioner are vague and omnibus in nature. The mobile phone of the Petitioner was also seized by the Investigating Officer. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting pre-arrest bail. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of Chittoor District. He has got fixed abode. The Petitioner would cooperate with the Investigating Officer. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the Petitioner. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition.
Mr.A.Sai Naveen, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 and Mr.A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of any relief, much less pre-arrest bail, to the Petitioner and submitted that the material is available to show that the Petitioner received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards ransom. It is further submitted that a crime was registered against the Petitioner vide FIR No.127 of 2026 on the file of Gangavaram Urban Police Station, Chittoor District alleging that he had intimidated the witnesses in the instant case. Permission was accorded by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate for registration of the crime for the offence punishable under Section 351(2) of ‘the BNS’. The investigation is still at a nascent stage and some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. Though the learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the mobile phone of the Petitioner was seized during the course of investigation, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor disputes the same and submits that no such mobile phone was seized by the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is necessary for conducting an effective and thorough investigation in the case. If pre-arrest bail is granted, the Petitioner is likely to threaten witnesses, tamper with the evidence and hamper the investigation. According to the prosecution, the Petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief as the accusations against him appear to be well-founded. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.
Now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?”
On perusal of the record, the Petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.25 in the present case. The role of the Petitioner came to light based on the confession of Accused No.3. Admittedly, the name of the Petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR at the time of its registration. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he furnished information regarding the whereabouts and movements of the de-facto complainant to Accused Nos.1 to 3, who had hatched a conspiracy and extorted an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-.
The prosecution alleges that the Petitioner received Rs.5,00,000/- out of the said amount towards part of the ransom. The case of the prosecution further reveals that the victim was kidnapped and an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-was extorted from the de- facto complainant.
There are call detail records showing 89 calls exchanged between the accused persons within a short span of three days. The prosecution contends that the calling pattern is abnormal as there was no prior friendship or acquaintance between the concerned accused persons.
It is further submitted that the Petitioner had intimidated the prosecution witnesses in the present crime. After obtaining permission from the learned Magistrate concerned, Crime No.127 of 2026 was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 351(2) of ‘the BNS’ and the investigation is still in progress.
No doubt, Accused No.26, who is the father of the Petitioner, was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Court on the ground that civil disputes existed between the parties. However, the learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 27.08.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.738 of 2026, dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by the present Petitioner observing that the accusations against him were well-founded, as he had allegedly received a part of the ransom amount and specific overt acts were attributed to him. The prosecution further alleges that Accused Nos.2 and 3 had conspired and engaged the services of other accused persons in the kidnapping of the de-facto complainant.
The grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner is neither a license for commission of serious offence nor a shield or protection for having committed grave offences, as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2 . The remedy of pre‑arrest bail, being an extraordinary and discretionary relief, cannot be granted to the Petitioner against whom the accusation is well-founded. Therefore, request for grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.25 at this juncture does not appear to be convincing or reasonable. There are no merits in the petition. Hence, the Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.