Pre-arrest bail should be denied in cases involving serious allegations and ongoing investigations, emphasizing the necessity of custodial interrogation.

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS S ’) by the petitioner/Accused No.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.66 of 2025 of Dargamitta Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section s 140 (1), 115(2), 351(3), 308(5), read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS ’)

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.03.2025 at 10.35 hrs at Pavani Park Apartment, Magunta Layout, Nellore, when one Kamalesh after taking massage from Hussain, Pavani Park Apartment he called him and informed that he is danger and he needs 750 gms of gold and also informed that to send that gold with Nazar, who is the son of Hussain, due to fear he taken 750 gms of gold from his shop and called the said Nazar over phone and they both went to National Highway in between Medicover Hospital and Kanaparthipadu cross road as informed by Kamalesh. Then they noticed that car was parked at road margin one person came out from the car and asked the gold. After giving the gold his brother was came out from the car and the said car was passed through. When he asked his brother he revealed that after completion of massage he was going to his house on his scooty, some unknown persons came on a car and restrain him and asked him to give amount and also beat him. When Kamalesh rejected to do so, the accused beat him with hands and abused with filthy language. On fear of death, Kamalesh telephoned to his elder and informed to him that he is in life threat, hence to handover 750 gms gold to them. Hence crime was registered.

3. Mr. Venati Sivaprasad Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is an innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning members of the family and, they are ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, Mr.Neelotphal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

5. Heard the 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 against the petitioner and only part of the property recovered from Accused 1, 4 and 5, rest of the property is yet to be recovered. It appears, custodial interrogation is required and Test Identification Parade is required to be conducted. If the Petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would be difficult for the Police either to conduct Test Identification Parade or for recovery of other part of the property. Further, it is not a ground to grant anticipatory bial to the Petitioner when Accused, 1, 4 and 5 were granted regular bail. Considering the gravity and seriousness of the allegations leveled against the Petitioner, the Petitioner is disentitled for Pre-arrest bail. Pre-arrest bail to an accused is neither license for commission of an offence nor a shield or a protection for having committed an offence by a