Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — S. 482 — Anticipatory Bail — Refusal of — Specific overt acts attributed — Custodial interrogation imperative — No ground to grant pre-arrest bail.
Held, that the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.10 is that he acted as the driver of a vehicle in which he knowingly picked up and dropped some of the accused after the commission of the offence and that he participated in the recce conducted prior to the commission of the offence. The petitioner is the uncle of Accused No.4. All the accused are alleged to have committed robbery by severely beating two elderly women (L.Ws.2 and 3) and stealing 17 tulas of gold ornaments. The police have already recovered 5 tulas of gold. Accused Nos.1 to 9 were arrested and enlarged on bail.
There are specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail. Grant of pre-arrest bail would amount to providing a shield or protection to a person against whom specific overt acts are attributed. Grant of anticipatory bail is not a licence for commission of cognizable and non-bailable offences.
Reliance placed on: Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Ss. 309(4), 309(6), 311 & 331(8) — Robbery — Elderly victims assaulted — Recovery effected — Accused Nos.1 to 9 enlarged on bail — Petitioner (driver) seeking anticipatory bail — Declined.
Held, that the investigation is at a nascent stage. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. If pre-arrest bail is granted, there is grave apprehension that the petitioner may not cooperate with the investigation and may tamper with witnesses or evidence. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.
However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and move an appropriate application for regular bail. The learned Jurisdictional Court is directed to dispose of the said application in accordance with law and on its own merits, after giving due opportunity to both sides including the learned Public Prosecutor.
APHC010503982025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3521]
FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9915/2025
Between:
Pinnamaneni Manoj ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1.B.SUDHAKAR KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the
Petitioner/Accused No.10, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with
Crime No.45 of 2025 of Cheepurupalli Police Station, Vizianagaram District,
registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 309(4), 309(6),
311, 331(8) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short „the BNS‟).
2025:APHC:42556
2
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that one Suresh
along with family went for pilgrimage on 17.05.2025 for holy dip in river in
Uttarakhand State. While going for pilgrimage, he has kept his mother in law
Chittamma in his house to accompany his mother Kasturibayi. On 24.05.2025
at 1 hours unknown culprits entered into Kasturibayi‟s house by break open
the northern side door in the first floor. While committing robbery, unknown
culprits beat Chittamma on right hand and on right eye with an iron rod and
caused bleeding injuries. Later unknown culprits went into the kitchen, brought
chilli powder and threw it into the eyes of Chittamma and Kasturibayi, later
Kasturibayi sustained grievous bleeding injury after the accused beat her on
forehead with an iron rod with a view to cause death. The unknown culprits
robbed ornaments of Chittamma and robbed gold chain from Kasturibayi‟s
neck and stole gold ornaments after break open the iron safe in the pooja
room, thereby a report was filed before the police and a case in Crime No.45
of 2025 was registered.
CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:
3. Mr. B.Sudkhakar Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully
submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and
has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning
member of her family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his
dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court
2025:APHC:42556
3
may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has
got fixed abode.
4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the
Petitioner and custodial interrogation period was over and such custody is not
warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has
cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or
tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court
may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.10 in the
interest of justice.
ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:
5. Per contra, Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the
investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the
Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the
Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may
not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law.
6. It is further urged that the prosecution also apprehends that the
Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby
obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of
the allegations and the potential risk to the integrity of the investigation, it is
prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed.
2025:APHC:42556
4
7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by
the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.
POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:
8. 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?”
ANALYSIS:
9. The allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.10 is that he acted as
the driver of a vehicle in which he knowingly picked up and dropped some of
the accused after the commission of the offence. It is also alleged that he
participated in the recce conducted prior to the commission of the offence.
The petitioner is the uncle of Accused No.4. All the accused are alleged to
have committed a robbery by severely beating L.Ws.2 and 3, both elderly
women, and stealing 17 tulas of gold ornaments from them. The police have
already recovered 5 tulas of gold. Accused Nos.1 to 9 were arrested and have
since been enlarged on bail. Accused No.6 was granted regular bail by this
Court. The present petition has been filed seeking pre-arrest bail for the
petitioner/Accused No.10. However, there are specific overt acts attributed to
the petitioner. Therefore, this Court does not find it appropriate to grant prearrest bail to the petitioner.
2025:APHC:42556
5
10. In view of these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant
of pre-arrest bail, as it would amount to providing a shield or protection to a
person against whom specific overt acts attributed. Grant of pre-arrest bail is
not a license for the commission of cognizable and non-bailable offences, as
per the decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v.
State of Panjab1
and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)2
.Hence,
there are no merits in the petition.
11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, as per the
request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is granted to the
petitioner to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned
within one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and move
an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned.
The learned Jurisdictional Court concerned is directed to dispose of the said
application in accordance with law, on its own merits by giving due and
sufficient opportunity to both including the learned Public Prosecutor
concerned, and pass appropriate orders.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 10.10.2025
S D P
1
(1980) 2 SCC 565
2
(2020) 5 SCC 1
2025:APHC:42556
6
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9915 of 2025
Date:10.10.2025
S D P
2025:APHC:42556
