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.5, seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.290 of 2026 of Tirupati Rural Police Station, Tirupathi District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 118(1), 191(2), 191(3), 109(1) read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS).
Mr.Medapati Santosh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there are no specific overt acts attributable to the petitioner and that the petitioner isinnocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and, therefore, if he is incarcerated, it would cause undue hardship to his dependents; He has fixed abode; He is a law-abiding citizen.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that accused Nos.1 to 4 in the crime mentioned supra were arrested and released on Regular Bail and that all the allegations levelled against the petitioner are omnibus in nature. Hence, it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and submits that the investigation is not yet completed and if the petitioner is enlarged on pre-arrest bail, he may not cooperate with the Investigating Officer and may evade the process of law.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that there are altogether four people who got injured in the said crime and one among them suffers grievous injuries and that there are specific overt acts attributable on the part of the petitioner and that all the allegations are well-founded. Therefore, he prays that the petition be dismissed.
Thoughtful consideration is bestowed upon the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
“Whether the petitioner/accused No.5 is entitled for pre-arrest bail?”
As seen from the record, the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.5. There are specific allegations leveled against the petitioner that he attacked L.W.3 with knife and caused injury to the right hand of the victim. Of course, the injuries may be simple in nature, but, allegedly, there are specific overt acts attributable on the part of the petitioner/accused No.5. Hence, 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 against whom specific allegations have been made, that he has allegedly attacked L.W.3 with knife and caused injury to the right hand of the victim, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab 1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)2.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner herein as there are no merits.
In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.