Pre-arrest bail may be denied in cases involving serious allegations such as attempt to murder, particularly when the court finds the accusations grave and the petitioner fails to provide documentary evidence to support claims of medical necessity.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Narik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.7 in Crime No.916 of 2025 before the Mailardevpally Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Section 61(2)(a), 55 read with 3(5) of BNS and Section 25(1)(A) of Arms Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is arrayed as an accused in the present crime and is apprehending arrest in connection with allegations relating to an attempt on the life of LW-6. The case of the prosecution is based mainly on the confessional statements of the co-accused, alleging involvement of the petitioner in the offence. Earlier, the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application and the same was dismissed on the ground that the investigation was pending and some accused were yet to be arrested. Subsequently, the other accused (A-4 to A-6) have been arrested and released on bail. Hence, the present second anticipatory bail petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri Mohd. Ashraf Ali, 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 there are no specific allegations against the petitioner and no material to show any intention to commit the alleged offence and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated solely based on the inadmissible confessional statements of co-accused and was never part of any conspiracy. He further submitted that subsequent developments, including arrest and release of other accused, constitute a change in circumstances and that the petitioner is suffering from serious health issues such as diabetes, asthma, and dizziness, and has been advised bed rest. 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 grant of anticipatory bail, contending that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and relate to an attempt on the life of the victim. He further submitted that the role of the petitioner is under investigation and his involvement is reflected from the statements of the co-accused. He asserted that mere arrest and release of other accused does not automatically entitle the petitioner to bail and that custodial interrogation may still be necessary. Therefore, at this stage, granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the main allegation against the petitioner is that he was involved in the alleged offence relating to an attempt on the life of LW-6, along with other accused. As seen from the record, there are serious allegations against the petitioner. Though it is contended that the petitioner is suffering from certain health issues and requires medical rest, no document has been filed to substantiate the same. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner at this stage and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall