ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by Petitioner/A.6 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.106 of 2023 of Kavali II Town Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 342, 307, 506 read with 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C’).

2. Brief facts of the Prosecution case are that the Defacto Complainant suffered loss in business and have to clear the debts incurred by him to his relatives. To return their money, he was searching for some business on social media. At that time, he came to know about the persons doing Gold business and Gems business at Kavali. Then, he got acquaintance with A.2 and A.2 deceived him that he is the PA of A.1 and they are going to give one kilo of Gold for Rs.35 lakhs. On hearing their fraudulent words, Defacto Complainant borrowed Rs.5 lakhs from his neighbour Durga Rao, and gave it to A.1 in the presence of A.2 to A.7. After taking money, A.2 stated that A.1 is not willing to give gold lesser amounts and asked him bring another Rs.10 lakkhs. On that the Defacto Complainant again borrowed Rs.10 lakhs from Durga Rao and gave to A.1. But the Accused did not give gold to him and tried to evade and further asked him to bring additional Rs.20 lakhs, then they will give one Kilo of Gold. As the Defacto Compainant was unable to procure money, and on 05.11.2022, he asked them to give the gold or return the money, then A.1 to A.7 confined him in a room, A.2 and A.4 tied him to a chair and A.1 to A.7 attempted to do away his life with knifes and axe and threatened him not to come to Kavali. When he begged the Accused, the Accused sent him away. By watching the press meeting held by Superintendent of Police, Nellore, the defacto complainant lodged a report on 15.11.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A.6 submits that due to political influence, police are implicating the petitioner in several false cases; the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the Petitioner; the offences alleged are less than seven years except the offence under section 307 of IPC which is not at all attracted even if the allegation with regard to the said offence admitted also; the said allegation is made only to avoid issuing section 41A of Cr.P.C notice and to arrest the Petitioner so as to extract a confession and recovery based on such confession by manipulation. The counsel further submits that the attempt to invoke section 307 of IPC lacks the necessary elements, aiming to deny the Petitioner the benefit of the Judgment of Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar1; Petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate fully with the investigation and he is ready to furnish suitable security and abide by any conditions which the Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent-State opposed to grant bail to the Petitioner/A.6 on the ground of investigation is pending; the ingredients of the section 307 are attracted to the facts of the present case; and

1 (2014) 8 SCC 273

if the Petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is a possibility of tampering with the evidence.

5. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner/A.6 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.

6. Perused the material on record.

7. Learned Petitioner's counsel raises concerns about the delayed registration of several similar offences against the Petitioner/accused. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argues that when the accused is involved in similar crimes with a consistent modus operandi, such reports should not be viewed with suspicion.

8. As mentioned in the complaint, the delay is attributed to fear and the information obtained from a press meeting held by the Superintendent of Police. The material on record indicates that the Victims/Complainants in the registered cases are not from the same place, and there is no material of pri