APHC010458712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9168/2025 Between: Md Liaqhad Qhureshi Alias Liaqhad ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VARREY VENTAKATA NAGAVISHNU TEJA 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 BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.255 of 2025 of Rajahmundry III Town L & O Police Station, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offence 2 punishable under Sections 118(1), 308(5) r/w Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short „the BNS‟) CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on the night of 06.06.2025, at about 10:45 P.M., the complainant closed his shop and went to his brother Abdul Raheem‟s house located at Gorakshanapeta. At about 1:30 A.M., while the complainant was returning to his house on his motorcycle near Dhavath Birtyani Point, Jampeta, and was parking his motorcycle. At about 2.00 A.M. the accused No.1 and his friend, who belong to Main Road, Rajamahendravaram, approached him on a Dio Scooty and started quarrelling with him. Accused No.1 took away the mobile phone from the complainant. At that moment, another person caused a bleeding injury on the complainant‟s back with an unknown sharp weapon. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr. V.V.N.V. Teja, learned counsel for the Petitioner/accused No.2 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 his family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. 3 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. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR. He was falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, 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 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. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 4 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 petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 2 in this case. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is CCTV footage showing the presence of the petitioner at the scene. The allegations against the petitioner are that he caused injury to the defacto complainant with a sharp-edged weapon. Although the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the statement given by the defacto complainant, the complainant stated that one person, who is a friend of accused No. 1, came and attacked him. There are specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail. Granting pre-arrest bail to a person against whom specific overt acts are attributed would amount to providing protection or providing a shield. Further, the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to any person against whom specific overt acts attributed, would amount to giving license for the commission of the offence, as per the dicta of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)2. Hence, there are no merits in the petition. 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 2(2020) 5 SCC 1 5 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.09.2025 S D P 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9168 of 2025 Date:17.09.2025 S D P