(Prayer: Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 5 on Bail in the event of their arrest in F.I.R. No. 79 of 2026 on the file of Mudinepalli Police Station, Eluru District, by way of granting Anticipatory Bail, and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent/Police not to arrest the Petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 5 on Bail in the event of their arrest in F.I.R. No. 79 of 2026 on the file of Mudinepalli Police Station, Eluru District, and pass)
1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 5 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 79 of 2026 of Mudinepalli Police Station, Eluru District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 118(1) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’)
2. Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the defacto complainant came to the house of the Petitioners and attacked the Petitioners and caused injuries. One of the Petitioners also lodged a complaint against the defacto complainant vide Crime No.78 of 2026. There are no similar adverse antecedents recorded against them. The Petitioners are innocents of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are the sole earning members of the family and, therefore, their incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The Petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, the learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.
3. Per contra, Mr.K. Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioners, submitting that Accused No.1 attacked the defacto complainant and other persons and caused injuries, which are grievous in-nature. Against Accused Nos. 2 to 5, there are only omnibus allegations. There are four eye witnesses to the alleged incident. Investigation is not completed. It is contended that if the Petitioners are released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
5. Perused the record.
6. It is alleged by the defacto complainant, vide complaint in Crime No.79 of 2026 that Accused No.1 attacked the victim with a stick on head and hand, caused fracture injury to the hand. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 together attacked the victims/ LWs 4 to 7 are the eye witnesses. The Petitioners also suffered injuries, but they are simple in-nature. Even in the complaint, the defacto complainant came to the house of the Petitioners and ensured quarrel. One of the Petitioners lodged a complaint against the defacto complainant in Crime No.78 of 2026. The complaint of the defacto complainant was registered as Crime No.79 of 2026. There are altogether two witnesses, one suffered grievous injuries and one suffered simple injuries and altered the Section of law from Section 118 to 118(1) of ‘the BNS’.
7. It is well settled in law, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab ((1980) 2 SCC 565) and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) ((2020) 5 SCC 1), that the grant of anticipatory bail does not amount to a charter for commission of serious offences, nor does it serve as a cloak of immunity for individuals against whom specific and prima facie cognizable allegations have been levelled. The relief under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’ is intended to safeguard personal liberty, but not to thwart the legitimate course of investigation or to protect those who are prima facie complicit in grave offences involving overt acts.
8. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner No.1/ Accused No.1, as it would amount to granting protection or sheer whom specific overt acts or acquisitions against him as per decision cited supra. However, the nature of allegations against Petitioners No. 2 to 5/ Accused Nos. 2 to 5, which are bald and omnibus allegations, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to them.
9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed with the following conditions:
i. In the event of arrest of the Petitioners No. 2 to 5/Accused Nos. 2 to 5 he shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials;
ii. The Petitioners No. 2 to 5/Accused Nos. 2 to 5 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required;
iii. The Petitioners No. 2 to 5/Accused Nos. 2 to 5 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;
iv. The Petitioners No. 2 to 5/Accused Nos. 2 to 5 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passports, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.
