The court denied bail based on the gravity of the offences and the risk of evidence tampering in an ongoing investigation.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking bail to the petitioner/accused No.6 in Crime No.34 of 2025 on the file of the P.S. Urkonda, Nagarkurnool District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 70(1), 351(3) and 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 28.03.2025, the victim went to her parental village to celebrate Ugadi. On 29.03.2025, after visiting Anjaneya Swamy Temple with her family and sleeping there, she was escorted by a relative to nearby fields. Around 10:30 pm, accused Nos. 1 to 7, including the petitioner, dragged her into the fields and tied her relative to a tree and committed rape on the victim one after the other and they also robbed the victim, taken away her gold ornaments and threatened to kill her, if she disclose the matter to others. Basing on the same, a crime was registered in Crime No.34 of 2025.

3. Heard Mr.Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence and he was falsely implicated in the above crime. He further submitted that even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 02.04.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody and entire investigation is completed, except filing of charge sheet. He further submitted that the petitioner is not having any other criminal antecedents and he is the only breadwinner of his family and he shall abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court, and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation, if any. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has committed grave offences and there are specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner and the investigation is under progress and if the petitioner is granted bail at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses, and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioner to attract sections 70(1), 351(3) and 310(2) of BNS. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, investigation is under progress.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.