Anticipatory bail is contingent on the seriousness of allegations and the accused's previous criminal involvement, emphasizing a case-by-case analysis.

ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section - 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for Short ‘ BNSS ’) seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No.145 of 2024 of P.S. Bomraspet Police Station, Vikarabad District.

3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as Accused No.2 in the aforesaid Crime. The offences alleged against him are under Sections - 189(2), 191(3), 126 (2), 127 (2) , 132 and 109 read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for Short ‘ BNS ’).

4. Perusal of record would reveal that on the complaint lodged by Mr. Rathod Kannaiah, PC 1404 of Bomraspet Police Station, the police registered a case in Crime No.145 of 2024 against the petitioner herein and others.

5. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the said complaint are as follows:

i) On 25.10.2024, a first public hearing was fixed by the Revenue Authorities. Mr. Avuti Shekar, President of Congress Party, Dudyal Mandal proceeded to Lagacherla from Hyderabad to attend the said public hearing at 10.00 A.M. Before entering into Lagacherla, the accused obstructed his vehicle at Rotibanda Thanda and damaged his vehicle and confined him in Gram Panchayat building and locked the main door. Meanwhile, huge public were gathered and then police came and rescued the said Shekar. The accused intended to attack on him with one big iron rod and sticks and forcibly hit the main door with an intention to kill the victim presuming that at the instance of the said Shekar only, Pharmacity is coming at Lagacherla. Subsequent to the said incident, the public hearing was postponed to 25.10.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the name of the petitioner is not there in the complaint. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer included the name of the petitioner as accused No.2. He has also filed a memo to the said effect.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed counter along with the statements of LWs.1 to 7 including the complainant as LW.1 and the said Avuti Shekar as LW.4 and the statements of Mr. Srinivasulu, Mr. Ravi Naik, Mr. Thunkimetla Vijay Kumar, driver of LW.4, Mr. Merugu Srikatnh,an Agricutlurist and resident of Dudyal Village, Mr. Avuti Nagaraju, an Agriculturist and resident of Lagacherla Village.

He is nephew of LW.4.

8. All of them in one voice spoke about the role played by the petitioner herein. The petitioner is the follower of Accused No.1 and he is the main conspirator. There are specific allegations against him and the same are serious in nature. At the instance of accused No.1 and 2, other accused restrained LW.4 and tried to kill him.

Investigation is still pending.

9. Section - 189 of BNS deals with ‘unlawful Assembly’, while Section - 191 of the BNS deals with rioting. Section - 127 of the BNS deals with ‘wrongful confinement. Section - 132 of the BNS deals with assaults or uses criminal force to deter any person from discharge of his official duty and the punishment prescribed is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

10. Section - 126 of the BNS deals with wrongful restraint and punishment for the same is one month or with fine which may extend to Rs.5000/- or with both. Section - 190 of the BNS says that every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object. Section - 109 of the BNS deals with attempt to murder. Thus, the punishment for the aforesaid offences except the offence under Section - 109 of the BNS is below 7 years. Therefore, petitioners are entitled for benefit under Section - 35 (3) of the BNS S .

11. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra , [1. (2011) 1 SCC 694 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down certain parameters that can be demonstrated while