Bail applications require a change in circumstances from prior denials; without such change, bail may be denied even if charges are serious.

ORDER :

1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Cr.No.98 of 2023 of Pithapuram Rural Police Station, Kakinada District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.06.2023 at about 08:00 P.M., the offence occurred near the outskirts of Kumarapuram Village, and it was reported on 13.06.2023 at 12:30 A.M., by the complainant alleging that boarded a service auto bearing No. AP 05 TG 0091 at Samalkot along with seven other co-passengers. Two unknown male persons had also boarded the auto and sat beside the driver to travel towards Pithapuram. When the vehicle reached the outskirts of Samalkot Village, one of the unknown persons had suddenly stabbed the auto driver in the stomach, dragged him out of the auto, and another person drove the vehicle towards Pithapuram. One of the accused brandished a country-made weapon, assaulted the complainant and other passengers, and robbed about 48 grams of gold ornaments worth Rs.1,08,000/- and her cellphone, as well as gold ornaments and cellphones from other passengers. The accused then abandoned the auto at the outskirts of Kumarapuram Village and fled away with the booty. Later, the complainant was shifted to Government Hospital, Pithapuram, for treatment. Basing on the MLC intimation and the recorded statement of the victim, the present FIR was registered.

3. Sri Duggirala Subash, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed to grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are yet to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner