1. Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(the BNSS) by the Petitioner/Accused No.9 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.88 of 2025 of Rolugunta Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 118(1), 351(3), 61(2) and 49 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(the BNS).

2. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family. Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with a permanent abode and is willing to comply with any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner undertakes to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and that custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioner has already extended full cooperation to the Investigating Officer and there exists no reasonable apprehension of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence.

4. Sri K.S. Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel further submits that the de- facto complainant was never at the scene of offence nor witnessed the incident directly. Yet, he made an allegation that Accused Nos.1 to 7 spelled the name of the petitioner during the attack that the petitioner had told them to kill the deceased and would handle consequences, without any direct evidence or specifics. It is a hearsay allegation that the accused shouted and was made deliberately to implicate the petitioner. Surprisingly, he didn't even state who informed him about the incident and about the shouting by Accused Nos.1 to 7 during alleged criminal acts. No prudent man would ever shout like that before committing the offence and such artificial imputation was made only to rope in the petitioner as an accused due to previous grudge against him that he was providing legal assistance to the other accused in cases against the deceased.

5. It is further submitted that since the deceased was a political leader, the incident took a political turn with many leaders putting pressure on police and that resulted in an attempt to fortify the case against the petitioner through illegal confessions of the co-accused before police, which are vague as they lack details such as the time, place, or manner of the alleged instigation. Such confessions before police of co-accused which were mentioned in the remand report of the A1 to A7 are inadmissible under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (the BSA) . When there is no direct evidence linking the petitioner to the land dispute or the offence, the question of instigating the accused would not arise and there was absolutely no necessity for the petitioner to commit the alleged acts. The petitioner was never at the scene of offence even as per the report and has no connection to the parties or the civil dispute over land other than providing professional legal services as an advocate to Accused Nos.1 to 7. The petitioner is a 64-year-old advocate with no prior criminal cases. He is suffering from Psoriasis, diabetes, Blood Pressure, ulcers in Liver at Primary stage and needs constant medication. His incarceration is not necessary as he is ready to co-operate with the investigation.

6. Sri K.S. Murthuy, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had only filed vakalat on behalf of Accused Nos.1 and 4 to obtain certified copies of earlier FIRs against the deceased wherein Accused Nos.1 and 4 were de-facto complainants. He was also giving legal advice in civil cases related to the land dispute to the accused and other tribes. The present false case was foisted to harass the petitioner, intimidate him, and dissuade him from giving legal services to the other Accused Nos.1 and 7, which is a violation of his professional rights as an advocate, and it is prayed to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.9 in the interest of justice and equity.

7. Per contra, Mr Nelootpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed to grant anticipatory bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and sensitive stage, and that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is indispensable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. Enlargement of the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail at this juncture would seriously impede the investigative process, as there exists a grave apprehension that the Petitioner may not extend requisite cooperation and may attempt to evade the due process of law.

8. It is further submited that the Petitioner, if granted the relief sought, may exert undue influence upon material witnesses or tamper with incriminating evidence, thereby vitiating the integrity of the investigation and obstructing the course of justice. In view of the gravity of the allegations and the potential prejudice to a fair and impartial inquiry, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed in the interest of justice.

9. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:

10. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:

                  “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?”

11. As seen from the record, Vara kannababu, who is the de-facto complainant, gave a report in the Rolugunta police station, on 20.10.2025 alleging that his father Vara Nuka Raju (deceased) had served three times as ZPTC of Koyyuru and once as Zilla Parishad Vice Chairman. His father purchased 9.83 acres of dry land situated in Survey No.139, M.K. Patnam Revenue Village, Chatarjipuram, in the year 2023 from one Mallidi Rama Reddy. Since that purchase, whenever they tried to cultivate or take possession of the said land, residents from Chatarjipuram village, Rolugunta Mandal, by name 1) Kedari Rajababu, 2) Neelapu Erakanna, 3) Neelapu Lakshman, 4) Kedari Rajeswari, 5) Eedala Rajeswari, 6) Neelapu Appalanaidu, and 7) Neelapu Demudu (Accused Nos.1 to 7) had been threatening them and attacking them with the intention of forcibly taking possession of their land. On 20.09.2023, the above persons attacked his father (Vara Nuka Raju), his nephew Vara Nuka Raju (Pandu), his younger brother Vara Venkateswarlu, and himself with intent to kill them. However, they narrowly escaped with serious injuries. Rolugunta Police registered the offence as a case in Cr. No. 119/2023 under Sections 307, 324, 447, 506, 509 and 427 of “the I.P.C.,‟ which is now under trial before the Court. As the above persons had failed to kill his father on that day, they conspired again to eliminate him and to grab the entire land.

12. It is further alleged that, on 20.10.2025, around 11:30 a.m., the very same seven persons along with one Mara Nuka Raju gathered together. His father, accompanied by Pangi Sattibabu, Masa Lovaraju of Turabada Gadda village, and some villagers from Jogampeta, went to Chatarjipuram to inspect their land. While his father and Masa Lovaraju were examining the field, others stood nearby on the field bund, the seven accused suddenly attacked. They shouted amongst themselves, "Kill this Nukaraju and all who came with him, they had escaped earlier and they must not be spared this time, P.S. Ajay Kumar sir told us to kill them, promising that he would handle the consequences anyone came to intervene". Acting on those words, they attacked his father with sticks and knives, striking his head (left side), left arm, right shoulder, and back, causing severe bleeding injuries that resulted in his instant death. They also attacked Masa Lovaraju, whose left thumb was injured by a knife. Rest of them ran away in fear, sustaining minor injuries. His father was taken to Area Hospital, Narsipatnam, around 2:40 p.m., where the doctor declared that he was already dead.

13. On the report of de-facto complainant, a case was registered as FIR. No.88 of 2025 on 20.10.2025 of Rolugunta P.S, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 118(1), 351(3), 61(2) and 49 r/w 3(5) of “the BNS‟. The petitioner herein is arrayed as Accused No.9 as he allegedly instigated the other accused to commit the offences. During investigation, the arrested accused gave confessions before police attributing a role to the petitioner.

14. At this juncture, while considering whether to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, the merits of the case, which are matters for trial, cannot be considered. There are allegations that the petitioner instigated Accused Nos.1 to 7 to commit the murder of Kannababu. Custodial interrogation is required to elicit further facts in the course of investigation. The accusations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The merits or demits of the case cannot be gone into. The validity or admissibility of the confessions cannot be gone into at this stage. The nature of the evidence, whether direct or circumstancial, cannot be looked into in this context. The vagueness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be appreciated in an application for grant of pre-arrest bail. The contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as narrated supra cannot be looked into at this point of time. L.W.17 the Tahsildar gave a statement to police that in the Mandal Level Coordination Committee meeting held on 28.12.2025, which was attended by L.W.17, the Special Officer, Rolugunta MPDO, the Sub-Inspector of Rolugunta Police Station, office staff, and both the groups of Vara Nukaraju and Kedari Rajababu, the land records of both parties were being examined. In the course of the proceedings, P.S.Ajay Kumar, who was present on behalf of the Kedari Rajababu group, suddenly entered into an argument with Vara Nukaraju. In the presence of all officials, he threatened Vara Nukaraju, stating, “I will see how you enter this land; if you do not leave it, you will be found dead in the same land.” Immediately, the Sub-Inspector intervened, calmed both parties, and restored order. It was to that disturbance, the meeting was adjourned, and both groups were informed that the next date would be communicated later. There was an audio conversation in between deceased and another person incriminating the petitioner in this case as he abetted that other accused to kill Vara Nukaraju.

15. In view of the specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner that he actively abetted the murder by instigation, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail. Grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy, to be granted only in exceptional circumstances. 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.

16. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, coupled with the nature and gravity of the specific allegations attributed to the Petitioners, this Court finds no justifiable ground to exercise discretion under Section 482 of “the BNSS‟. The allegations prima facie discloses a serious offence warranting thorough investigation, and the Petitioners, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not merit the relief of pre-arrest bail.

17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity and nature of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

18. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.