Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
Kamepalli Tulasi Babu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
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.
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.
The court emphasized that bail should be denied when serious allegations of custodial torture and potential witness tampering are present, especially involving politically influential individuals.
The court denied anticipatory bail due to prima facie evidence of the petitioner's involvement in custodial torture and emphasized the importance of medical ethics in legal proceedings.
The court reaffirmed that the presumption of innocence and the right to bail are fundamental, particularly when evidence is insufficient to justify continued detention.
The court emphasized that pre-arrest bail cannot be denied based on vague, omnibus allegations lacking specific overt acts attributed to each accused.
The court emphasized the principle that bail may be granted with conditions to prevent tampering with evidence, while considering the severity of charges against the accused involved.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
