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.4 in Crime No.18 of 2026 before the Kanchanbagh Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 309(4) read with 3(5) of BNS.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.01.2026, based on a complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, it was alleged that on the same day at about 10:30 hours, while he had gone to collect finance dues in Hafeez Baba Nagar area, four unknown persons wrongfully restrained him, threatened him, and forcibly took him to a secluded place. There, they snatched his two mobile phones and cash of Rs.53,000/-, and further compelled him to transfer Rs.15,000/- through PhonePe from his employer and Rs.30,000/- via UPI from his mobile phone. After taking a total amount of Rs.83,000/-, they returned his bike and mobile phones and fled. Based on the complaint, a case in Crime No.18 of 2026 was registered at Kanchanbagh Police Station, initially under Section 308(2) r/w 3(5) BNS and later altered to Section 309(4) BNS.

3. Heard Sri S.M. Rizwan Akhtar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachander Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of the alleged confession statements of Accused Nos.1 and 2 and that no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioner in the complaint and the material on record does not disclose his involvement. He further submitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 have already been granted bail and the petitioner is entitled to parity. He contended that the alteration of the offence to Section 309(4) BNS was done without proper justification. 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 opposes the petition contending that the allegations against the accused are serious in nature involving wrongful restraint, threat, and forcible extortion of a substantial amount. He further submitted that the petitioner was implicated during the course of investigation based on the confession of co- accused and his role is yet to be fully ascertained. He contended that the investigation is still in progress and granting anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper the investigation. Therefore, at this stage, granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner is implicated in the present crime on the basis of the confession statements of Accused Nos.1 and 2 during the course of investigation. The main allegation against the accused persons is that they, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant, threatened him, and forcibly extorted an amount of Rs.83,000/- by taking cash and effecting online transfers. Though it is contended that no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioner and that he is entitled to parity, the allegations are serious in nature and the investigation is still in progress. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as sought for by the petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Petition is devoid of merits.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court and file a regular bail petition. The trial Court is, in turn, directed to consider and dispose of the same on its own merits, as expeditiously as p