The court denied anticipatory bail due to serious allegations and the petitioner's prior criminal record, establishing the severity of offenses under relevant statutes.

Order

:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.5 in Crime No.300 of 2024 of Balapur Police Station, Rachakonda, registered for the offences punishable under Section s 49 , 61(2), 103(1) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha , 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Section s 25 (1)(1-B)(a)(b), 27(3) and 29 of Arms Act, 1959 .

2. Heard Mr. T.Surya Satish, learned counsel representing Mr. Y.Bala Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.5 and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.08.2024 at about 00:10 hours, the complainant filed a complaint stating that his brother- Khaja Riyazuddin (deceased) was doing fruit business in Kanchanbagh and on 08.08.2024, while the complainant was returning home after finishing his work and reached near Indane Gas Godown on RCI-Mallapur road, at around 22:20 hours, he noticed a crowd and when he stopped his car and found that the deceased was lying on the left side of the road with a fractured head and severe bleeding injuries and his bike was also damaged and the witnesses present there said that some unknown persons hit the bike of the deceased with a car. The complainant shifted the deceased to Owaisi Hospital for treatment, but the doctors declared him as brought dead. Basing on the said complaint, the aforesaid crime was registered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime based on the confession statement made by the other accused only. He further submits that that even according to the complaint or the remand case diary, no specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 49, 61(2) and 103(1) of BNS and Sections 25(1)(1-B)(a)(b), 27(3) and 29 of Arms Act. He further submits that the deceased is a rowdysheeter and the said aspect has not been taken note of by the police while conducting the investigation. He further submitted that the other accused were already enlarged on bail and the investigating officer, after examining 40 witnesses, filed charagesheet and hence, the question of the petitioner interfering with the investigation or influencing the witnesses does not arise and prays to grant bail to the petitioner as he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by the conditions as may be imposed by this Court.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner/accused No.5 has committed grave offence as at his instance only, the other accused have murdered the deceased. He further submitted that the other accused were enlarged on bail solely on the ground that the investigation officer has not filed the chargesheet within the statutory period.

He further submitted that the investigating officer filed charagesheet on 14.11.2024 in respect of accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 10 only and as petitioner/accused No.5 and accused No.11 were absconding, he specifically mentioned that he will file supplementary chargesheet against the petitioner/accused No.5 and accused No.11. He further submits that the petitioner is staying in Dubai and a Look Out Circular (LOC) has already been issued against him and in order to avoid the same, the petitioner filed this criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail and hence, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by l