Bail should not be punitive; it is to secure attendance at trial, and pre-trial detention must be justified by substantial evidence of risk of flight or tampering.

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), is filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Accused No.6, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.187 of 2024 of Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur District.

2. A case has been registered against the petitioner/accused No.6 and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 166, 167, 197,307, 326, 465, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).

3. The Prosecution asserts that the defacto complainant sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur, stating that a false case (FIR No.12/2021, dated 14.05.2021) was filed against him by the CBCID of Andhra Pradesh. He claims that on 14.05.2021, he was arrested unlawfully at his residence in Hyderabad without a medical examination despite having recently undergone heart surgery. He was physically dragged into a police vehicle, taken to Guntur, and detained without proper legal procedures. During detention at the CID office, he was tortured, including being beaten, verbally abused, and denied medication. He was also threatened with death for criticizing the Chief Minister. His injuries were not reported by hospital officials who colluded with police officers to falsify medical reports despite the severity of his injuries. The complainant claims that due to the brutality, he was transferred to an Army hospital, where medical reports revealed fractures in his feet, contradicting the false reports from Guntur General Hospital. Despite these allegations, no case of police brutality was filed, allegedly due to the influence of Mr Jagan Mohan Reddy. The complainant seeks legal action against the accused for attempted murder, custodial torture, and criminal conspiracy.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that he was initially not named in the FIR and was only added as A.6 after his arrest, with no prima facie material linking him to the crime. The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 179 of B.N.S.S. to appear before the Respondent Police but requested an alternative date and documents, which were not provided. Despite complying with the notice, the petitioner was arrested without explanation, violating Supreme Court guidelines. The arrest and detention are arbitrary, contrary to constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22. The petitioner's arrest appears to result from malice and a desire to falsely implicate him due to his association with former police officials. There is no risk of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence. The police's claim that the petitioner failed to cooperate is unfounded, as he had previously requested relevant documents. The petitioner's father filed a Habeas Corpus petition, and the investigation is almost completed, with no criminal history attached to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner because the investigation was still pending.

6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions, which are on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report.

7. This Court, while dismissing the bail application in Crl.P.No.436 of 2025, granted the liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies before the Court below. According to the observations made by this Court, the petitioner approached the Sessions Court seeking bail, but the same was dismissed.

8. In Masroor V. State of U.P., [(2009) 14 SCC 286], a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

13. … Though at the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided, but there is a need to indicate in such order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having comm