The court denied pre-arrest bail based on the severity of allegations and necessity for custodial interrogation.

ORDER:

This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of pre-arrest Bail. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2 in Cr.No.38 of 2025 of Kotha Cheruvu Police Station, Sri Sathyasai District, which was registered with the allegation of committing the offences under Sections 126 (2) , 118(1) , 54 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ). It is reported that Section 238 (a) and 109 (1) BNS are added and Section 118 (2) is likely to be added. But, at a time of remand of accused No.3, Section 109 (1) of BNS Act is shown.

2. The petitioner/accused while denying the allegations claimed that he is sole breadwinner for the family and prays for directions to release on Bail, in the event of arrest.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Point for determination:

Whether the petitioners/Accused No.2 is entitled for grant of pre- arrest bail in terms of Section 482 of BNSS? If so, on what terms?

Point:

5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that there are pre-existing disputes between Accused No.3, K. Manohar, and the informant, Neeruganti Anjanayulu @ Bhenisha, particularly concerning certain agricultural lands and mango trees and a criminal conspiracy was hatched to eliminate the informant.

ii) On 20.05.2025, while the informant was travelling on his motorcycle, two unknown persons riding a two-wheeler came and hit the motorcycle on which the informant was travelling at that time one more person was present there picking up onions on the road. Those three persons alleged to have attacked the informant with stones, causing injuries to his head, eye brow, and right hand. Upon noticing people approaching, they ran away from the scene.

iii) It is further alleged that Accused No.2, is the brother-in-law of Accused No.3 (K. Manohar). He is said to be an associate of Accused No.1. Accused No.3 made a confession indicating the role of all accused persons and conspiracy to eliminate the informant.

The case of the petitioner:

6) The petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.2, firmly denied the allegations and submits that there are previous disputes between the petitioner and accused No.3 are the reason to implicate the petitioner/accused No.2 in the present case and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He is ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court .

7) The incident is occurred on 20.05.2025, the FIR was registered on 21.05.2025 for offences under Sections 126(2) , 118(1), and 54 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ), 2023. Additional sections, including 238(a) and 109(1), were added subsequently. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that seven witnesses are examined, and the investigation is still pending, receiving of wound certificate is awaited and injured is discharged from the hospital.

8. In the remand report of accused No.3, while referring to the conspiracy involving accused No.3 Manohar and accused No.2, it is mentioned that assailants were hired from Hindupur to attack the informant. It was stated by accused No.3, that stones and other weapons were used during the incident, but the names of two other accomplished were not disclosed by him stating that accused No.2 brought the assailants. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of accused No.2 is necessary. On this ground, the pre-arrest bail is opposed.

9. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the allegations, and the manner of the attack by wearing monkey caps and necessary of custodial interrogation, it is found that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail. The point stands decided against the petitioner. Having regard to the nature and severity of the allegations, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected.

10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.