Serious allegations and ongoing investigation can justifiably deny pre-arrest bail.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.6 in Crime No.193 of 2025 before the Mancherial Town Police Station, Ramagundam District.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.03.2025 the de facto complainant was watching a cricket match at Shivaji Ground, Mancherial, the accused A1 Appu and others beat him with stones over petty issues. As a result, he sustained bleeding injuries and was admitted to the hospital, where he underwent treatment until the date of the complaint. Due to his hospitalization, there was a delay, and the matter was reported on 21.03.2025.

3. Heard Sri Badra Nanavath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was innocent and falsely implicated, as there was no allegation in the FIR or alteration memo that he caused any harm or played any role in the incident. The FIR was first registered under Section 118 (1) BNS (simple hurt) only against A1 Arfoz Appu and others, and the name of the petitioner appeared later in improved statements and that the incident took place on 09.03.2025, but the complaint was lodged on 21.03.2025 after 12 days without proper explanation, raising doubt about its truth. The alteration of the case from Section 118 (1) to 118(2) BNS was based only on a later medical certificate, which did not show any grievous injury by the petitioner. Even if taken as true, the ingredients of Section 118 (2) BNS were not made out. The allegations were vague, general, and without specific role, which the Supreme Court held to be insufficient in Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar. The offence under Section 118 (2) applied only if grievous hurt as defined in Section 116 BNS was caused, but there was no such injury attributed to the petitioner. Hence, the alteration and his implication were a misuse of law. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He further submitted that the investigation was not yet completed. At this stage, granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the incident took place on 09.03.2025 at Shivaji Ground, Mancherial, where the de facto complainant sustained bleeding injuries due to assault, and the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.6. The case, which was initially registered under Section 118 (1) BNSS , was later altered to Section 118 (2) BNSS on the basis of medical opinion. As the investigation is still pending and the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail at this stage and the same is liable to be dismissed.