Pre-arrest bail denied when specific overt acts against the accused are present and investigation is incomplete.

ORDER:

Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS ’) by the Petitioner/Accused for grant pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.22 of 2025 of Yadiki UrbanPolice Station, Anantapur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 118(1) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.07.2025, at around 11:00 A.M., at Rayalacheruvu Village, an incident occurred which was reported at the police station on 29.07.2025 at 4:00 P.M. In this incident, accused Nos. 1 to 6 allegedly picked up a quarrel with the complainant and his relative, assaulted them using rods and a crowbar, and caused a bleeding injury to the complainant on his head. When the complainant's relatives intervened, they managed to rescue the injured persons and shifted them to the Primary Health Centre (PHC), where the duty doctor administered first aid and referred them to a Private Hospital in Ananthapuramu for better treatment. The motive behind the attack was with regard to a dispute concerning the illegal construction of a wall between the complainant and the accused. Based on the complainant’s report, a case was registered.

3. Sri N. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence; he was falsely implicated in this case. He is the sole bread winner of his family. He is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. It is urged to grant pre-

arrest bail to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner stating that some more material witnesses have to be examined. Investigation is not completed. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he would escape from the clutches of law, and it is requested to pass appropriate orders by dismissing the petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

6. As seen from the record, there are specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner/accused. The victims have suffered grievous injuries as a result of the alleged acts committed by the petitioner. The investigation is at a nascent stage, and several witnesses are yet to be examined. A substantial portion of the investigation remains incomplete. Therefore, request for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner does not appear to be convincing or reasonable. Furthermore, importantly grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, against whom specific overt acts grave in nature are alleged, is neither a license for commission of serious offence nor a shield or protection for having committed grave offences, as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab , [(1980) 2 SCC 565]and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), [(2020) 5 SCC 1] . There are no merits in the petition. The petitioner/accused is disentitled for grant of pre-arrest bail.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.