Pre-arrest bail may be denied when the accused is specifically named in the complaint, attributed with a direct overt act of violence, and medical evidence confirms the infliction of grievous injuries.

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.1 in Crime No.74 of 2026 before the Chityal Police Station, Nalgonda District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of BNS.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.03.2026 at about 9:00 PM, while the de facto complainant and his family were passing through the bazaar at Vembavi village, the petitioner/A1 allegedly abused them in filthy language, threatened them regarding entry into a temple, and attacked the complainant with a knife causing injury. Other accused also allegedly joined, assaulted the complainant and his son with a stone and stick, and criminally intimidated them.

3. Heard Sri Prakash Yara, 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 has been falsely implicated due to prior political and family disputes, and that the complaint is a counterblast to an earlier complaint lodged by the petitioner’s wife and that there are no specific overt acts attracting the alleged offences and that the allegations are exaggerated and motivated. The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with clean antecedents, a permanent resident, and is willing to cooperate with the investigation. He argued that custodial interrogation is not necessary and arrest would cause irreparable hardship. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is specifically named in the complaint and attributed with a direct overt act of attacking the complainant with a knife, causing injury and that the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences involving assault and criminal intimidation, and the investigation is at a crucial stage. The prosecution contends that granting anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper the investigation and influence witnesses. Hence, 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 appears that the petitioner/A1 is specifically named in the complaint and attributed with a direct overt act in the commission of the offence. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he attacked the de facto complainant on the head with a knife, causing bleeding injuries, and also abused and threatened the victims. As seen from the record, the learned Public Prosecutor has filed the medical report, which discloses grievous injuries. Considering the same, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

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