Anticipatory bail should not be granted to persons involved in economic offences, especially when ongoing investigations require their custodial interrogation to secure relevant evidence.

COMMON ORDER:

These two Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by way of this common order as they arise out of same crime but the Petitioners are different.

2. Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS ’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.135 of 2025 of Madanapalle I Town Police Station, Annamayya District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 287 , 326(g) and 316(5) of the , 2023 (for brevity ‘the ’) and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public PropertyAct, 1984.

3. Sri C.Rajendra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocent. They have not committed any offence. They are law abiding citizens. They were falsely implicated in this case. They have permanent abode. They would abide by any condition which this Court deems fit to enlarge them on bail. Accused No.3 is follower of Ex-Minister, Accused No.4 is Personal Assistant to Ex-MLA and former Minister. Initially a notice contemplated under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS ’ was issued and the Petitioners have scrupulously followed the conditions of the notice and cooperated with the investigation in all particulars.

4. Sri C.Rajendra, learned for Petitioners submits that the entire sequence of events, orders, and judicial pronouncements placed on record unmistakably demonstrate that the Petitioner/Accused No.3 has been under the continuous protective umbrella of this Court, and that at every stage the offences alleged have been categorically recognized as being punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, thereby attracting the salutary safeguards enshrined under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS ’. It is further urged that despite the Petitioner’s scrupulous compliance with notices issued under Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ his voluntary appearance before the Investigating Officer, and his unequivocal cooperation with the investigation, the police have indulged in repeated attempts to effect coercive action, including impermissible second arrest in the same crime, thereby acting in derogation of the settled principles of law and in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel emphasizes that the Petitioner/Accused No.3 has neither absconded nor attempted to tamper with evidence, and his conduct throughout has been bona fide, as evidenced by the multiplicity of proceedings wherein this Court has consistently interdicted coercive steps and recognized the petitioner’s entitlement to protection. In these circumstances, the learned counsel submits that custodial interrogation is neither warranted nor permissible, and that the petitioner, being ready and willing to abide by any conditions imposed, is entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, so as to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the Petitioner/Accused No.4 has been falsely implicated in Crime No.135 the incontrovertible fact that at the time of the alleged fire accident in the Sub- Collector’s office, he was not even present in India, having been in the United States for more than six months prior to the occurrence. It is urged that the Petitioner/Accused No.4 has consistently approached this Court through various proceedings, namely Crl.P.No.9036 of 2024, Crl.P.No.1916 of 2025, W.P.No.7435 of 2025, and Crl.P.No.10227 of 2025, wherein this Court has repeatedly rec