Anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly, only in exceptional circumstances where the accused poses no misuse of liberty risks.

ORDER:

1. The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNS S '), is filed on behalf of the petitioner/Accused to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.43 of 2025 of Obulavaripalli Police Station, Annamayya District, registered for the offences punishable under Section s 109 and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘ BNS ’).

2. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that on 07.02.2025 at approximately 02.45 pm, the accused visited the defacto complainant’s field while she alone was attending the agriculture work. With the intent to kill her, he took a stone and beat on her head and caused bleeding injury. Upon hearing the cries of the defacto complainant, the persons, Prasad, Lakshmi Narasamma Ganesh, Rajesh and others, rushed to the scene, prompting the accused to flee away from the scene of offence. The further case of the prosecution is that the accused committed the offence against the defacto complainant because she had refused to allow him a passage through her land to access his own land,

3. have heard Sri N. Pavan Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Neelothpal, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the Respondent-State. Both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition and in the report.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The defacto complainant had prior disputes with the petitioner over cultivation activities. On 22.01.2025, the petitioner had booked a flight to attend the Mahakumbamela. The defacto complainant visited the petitioner’s land, threatened the labourers, and used abusive language, which was reported to the petitioner. Despite his urgency, the petitioner visited the land with his vendor, where the complainant verbally abused them. The defacto complainant then slipped, fell on a stone, and sustained an injury, which she later gave a report to the police against the petitioner. The petitioner has no prior criminal record, has a fixed abode, is the primary care taker of his family, and is ready to cooperate with the investigation.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that the injury sustained by the defacto complainant is grave in nature and prays this Court to dismiss the present petition.

6. In Rakesh Baban Borhade V. State of Maharashtra and another , 2015 SAR (Criminal) 156 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that:

“Anticipatory bail not to be granted as a matter of rule but should be granted only when a case is made out and the Court is convinced that the accused would not misuse his liberty”.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V. State of Maharashtra , (2004) 9 see 31 held that the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused are the prime factors that must be considered while granting or refusing to grant anticipatory bail to the accused.

8. The anticipatory bail, the extraordinary privilege, should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie convinced that the accused is enroped in the crime and unlikely to misuse the liberty granted. The necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioner / accused is paramount in this case to facilitate a