1. 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 6 for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.65 of 2025 of Vedayapalem Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 109(1) and 118(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

2. Sri Sivaprasad Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the alleged incident occurred on 25.02.2025 on 7:30 P.M. The report was lodged on 26.02.2025. There is a delay of more than one day. The petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and he has fixed abode. The petitioner would abide by any conditions which this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petitioner would not flee away from the process of law if he enlarged on bail as he has got a fixed abode and it is urged to enlarged the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.

3. Per contra, Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, stating that accusations against the petitioner is well-founded. He has been absconding. Accused Nos.2 and 4 were arrested and remanded. The victim suffered two simple injuries. There are two eye-witnesses to the incident. There are adverse antecedents against the petitioner and it is urged to dismiss the petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

5. As seen from the record, it is alleged by the de-facto complainant/victim that the petitioner, along with two other accused, totalling three in number, initially picked up a quarrel with his brother. Thereafter, the petitioner, nursed grudge against one Rasool, at about 7:30 p.m. on 25.02.2025, surrounded the de-facto complainant and abused him in filthy language. It is alleged that the petitioner threw a knife at the de-facto complainant, as a result of which he sustained a bleeding injury on his left elbow. It is further alleged that the petitioner also stabbed the de-facto complainant with a knife, thereby causing another bleeding injury.

6. The de-facto complainant was shifted to the Government Hospital on the same day, where he received treatment and discharged. Subsequently, on 26.02.2025 at about 10:00 a.m., the de-facto complainant complained of severe headache and body pains and was again shifted to the hospital, where he was rendered treatment. The police visited the hospital, recorded the statement of the de-facto complainant, and registered the case on 26.02.2025 at about 3:00 p.m. for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1) and 118(1) read with Section 3(5) of ‘the BNS’.

7. Accused Nos.2 to 4 have already been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Ever since the date of the offence, the petitioner has been absconding. There are two eye-witnesses to the incident, namely L.Ws.2 and 4. The de-facto complainant sustained two simple injuries at the hands of the petitioner and the other accused. However, as submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the wound certificate has not yet been received by the Investigating Officer.

8. It is further reported that, on an earlier occasion, the petitioner was allegedly involved in an offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.54 of 2021. The petitioner was also alleged to have committed an offence under the provisions of the NDPS Act in Crime No.233 of 2019. There are specific overt acts against the petitioner. Therefore, request for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner does not appear to be convincing or reasonable. Furthermore, importantly grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, against whom specific overt acts grave in nature are alleged, is neither a license for commission of serious offence nor a shield or protection for having committed grave offences, as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 is disentitled for grant of pre-arrest bail.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.