Shaik Shahabaj Ali vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity „the SC & ST (POA) Act.,‟) seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.10 on bail in Crime No.119 of 2026 of Nuzvid Town Police Station, Eluru District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 140(2), 308(4), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNS.,‟) and Section 3(2)(v) of „the SC & ST (POA) Act.,‟

Sri J..Sudharshan Reddy, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order dated 17.08.2026 dismissing the bail application is legally unsustainable as the Appellant‟s name does not figure in the original FIR dated 27.07.2026, nor in the remand report pertaining to Accused Nos.3 to 7 dated 28.07.2026, and his implication as Accused No.10 is purely an afterthought based on belated statements of L.Ws.16 and 17 recorded on 29.07.2026, nearly two days after the alleged occurrence, which cannot form the sole basis for denying bail; that the Appellant is merely a distant relative by marriage to Accused No.2, is gainfully employed as a software professional in Hyderabad, has no connection whatsoever with the tobacco business dispute between the de-facto complainant and Accused Nos.1&2, and had not even visited Guntur for two months prior to the incident; that the sole allegation against the Appellant, even if taken at its highest, is of subsequently sheltering Accused No.2 and arranging a SIM card, which is categorically denied and does not attract the rigours applicable to the principal offences of kidnapping, extortion and criminal intimidation; that any purported “confession” attributed to the Appellant in the remand report is wholly inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 being a statement made to a police officer, and the learned Special Judge erred in mechanically declining bail by applying considerations germane only to the main accused without recording any independent finding regarding the Appellant‟s specific role; that the investigation qua the Appellant stands complete as all 22 witnesses have been examined, and continued incarceration cannot be justified on the ground that arrest of Accused Nos.8&9 and recovery of the Bolero vehicle remain pending, which have no nexus with the Appellant; that the essential ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of „the SC & ST (POA) Act.,‟ namely intentional insult or humiliation in public view, are wholly absent against the Appellant; that unlike Accused No.2 who absconded and was traced from Vadodara, the Appellant was found at his own residence in Hyderabad without any resistance, demonstrating no intention to flee; that the Appellant has no criminal antecedents, is the sole breadwinner of his family, and undertakes to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Petition.

Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri P.Chetan, the learned legal aid counsel for Respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and so far 22 witnesses were examined. It is contended that if the Petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law and urged to dismiss the Petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

On a careful perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the Petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.10 in the present crime and came to be arrested on 02.08.2026. Since the date of his arrest, the Petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody for a period of 32 days. It is further submitted that as many as twenty-two prosecution witnesses have already been examined and a substantial part of the investigation stands completed.Significantly, Accused Nos.1 and 2, who are stated to be similarly situated, have already been enlarged on bail. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of Tadikonda Village, Guntur District, possessing deep roots in society and a fixed place of abode, thereby minimizing any apprehension of his absconding or evading the due process of law.

Having regard to the stage of the investigation, the period of incarceration already undergone by the Petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the continued detention of the Petitioner would serve no useful purpose. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to indicate that, if enlarged on bail, the Petitioner would attempt to influence or intimidate prosecution witnesses, interfere with the ongoing investigation, or tamper with the evidence.Therefore, this Court is satisfied that the Petitioner can be enlarged on bail, subject to the imposition of stringent and appropriate conditions, to secure his presence during the course of trial and to safeguard the interests of the prosecution.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.10, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.10 on bail subject to stringent conditions.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed with the following stringent conditions: