Court grants pre-arrest bail under strict conditions, emphasizing cooperation in ongoing investigations.

ORDER :

1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3/Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.362 of 2025 of Chodavaram Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 109 (1), 118 (1), 329 (3), 324 (4), 79, 351 (2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.12.2024 between 12:30 PM and 1:00 PM, the complainant, who owns 3.50 acres of ancestral land in Chakkipalli (Survey Nos. 214-4, 214-15, 213-7, 213-11, 215-21, 214-9), reported that despite the MRO’s endorsement in his favour, Lekkala Govinda and others had illegally entered the disputed land and cultivated paddy. While the complainant, his wife Chandramma, and son Ramu were on their way to inform the Chodavaram police and MRO, near Bonda Madhum, the accused attacked them with knives, sticks, and sickles. The complainant sustained four deep cuts on the head and injuries to his hands; his wife was stabbed on the forehead, her clothes torn, and she was groped; Ramu was struck on the head. The accused threatened to kill them and chased them.

CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:

3. Sri D.V.V.S.S.N.H. Bhujnga Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioners are the sole earning members of their family, and their arrest would cause irreparable hardship to their dependents. The Petitioners are willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioners have got fixed abode.

4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioners and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3/Accused No.2, 4 and 5 in the interest of justice.

ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:

5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners are imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that they may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law.

6. The prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioners may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the progress of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed.

7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:

8. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?

ANALYSIS:

9. On a bare perusal of the entire record, it is forthcoming that Accused No.1 beat the de-facto complainant with a stick. Accused No.3 beat the de- facto complainant with a knife. The de-fac