In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtrar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain parameters tha

and Mr. E. Ganesh, leamed Assistant public prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State.

2. This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner under section - 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha sanhita (ror Short 'BNSS') seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No. 145 of 2024 of p.S. Bomraspet porice Station, Vikarabad District.

3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as Accused No,2 in the aforesaid crime. The offences aileged against him are under Sections - 189(2), t91(3), t26 (2),127 (Z), t32 and 109 read with 190 ofthe Bharatiya Nyayil Sanhita (for Short ,BNS,).

4. Perusal of record would reveal that on the complainr: lodged by Mr. Rathod Kannaiah, pC l4O4 of Bomraspet police Station, the police registered aL case in crime No. 145 of 2024 against the petitioner herein and otherr;. I I I z KT-J Crt.P No.16140 of2024

5. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the said complaint are as follows: i) On 25.10.2024, a hrst public hearing was fixed by the Revenue Authorities. Mr' Avuti Shekar' President of Congress Party' Dudyal Mandal proceeded to Lagacherla from Hyderabad to attend the said public hearing at 10'00 A'M' Before entering into Lagacherla, the accused obstructed his vehicle at Rotibanda Thanda and damaged his vehicle and conhned him in Gram Panchayat building and locked the main door. Meanwhite, huge public riere gathered and then police came and rescued the said Shekar' The accused intended to attack on him with one big iron rod and sticks and forcibly hit the main door with an intention to kill the victim presuming that at,the instance of the said Shekar only' Pharmacity ts coming at Lagachetla' Subsequent to the said incident' the public hearing was postponed to 25'10'2024'

6. Leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit that the name of the petitioner is not there in the complaint' During the course of investigation, the lnvestigating Officer included the name of the petitioner as accused No'2' He has also filed a memo to the said effect. 3 K]-,J Crl.l'. \o.16140 of 2024

7. Learrrcd Public Prosecutor has filed counter along with the statements of LWs.l to 7 including the complainant as LW. I and the said Avrti Shek.ar as LW.4 and the statements of Mr. Srinivasulu, Mr. Ravi Naik, N4r Thunkimetla Vijay Kumar, driver of LW.4, Mr. Merugu Srikatnh,an Agricutlurist and resident of Dudyal Vrllage, Mr. Aurti Nagaraju, an Agriculturist and resident of Lagacherla Village. He is nepherv o1'LW.4.

8. All c,f them in one voice spoke about the role played by the petitioner herein. The petitioner is the follower of Accused No. 1 and he is the main ccnspirator. There are specific allegations against him and the same ar3 serious in nafure. At the instance of accused No.l and 2, other accused restrained LW.4 and tried to kill him. Investigation is still pending.

9. Section - 189 of BNS deals with ,unlawful .A.ssembly,, while Section - 191 ol,:he BNS deals with rioting. Secrion - 127 of the BNS deals with 'wrorLgful confinement. Section - 132 of the BNS deals with assaults or uses criminal force to deter any person fiom discharge of his official dury and the punishment prescribed is imprisonment of 4 KL,J Crl.P. No 16140 of2024 either description for a terrn which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

10. Section - 126 of the BNS deals with wrongful restraint and punishment for the same is one month or with fine which may extend to Rs.5000/- or with both. Section - 190 of the BNS says that every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object. Section - 109 of the BNS deals with attempt to murder. Thus, the punishment for the aforesaid offences except the offence under Section - 109 of the BNS is below 7 yeats. Therefore, petitioners are entitled for benefit under Section - 35 (3) of the BNSS. 1 1. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtrar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain parameters that can be demonstrated while dealing with anticipatory bail and it is relevant and same is extracted below: "121. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly '. (zott) t scc og+ 5 KL,J Crl P l.o.l6l40 of2024 visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory baii. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or rellsal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on facts and circumstarces of each case. As aptly observed in the Constinrtic,n Bench decision in Sibbia's case (supra) thal rhe High Ccrurt or the Court of Sessions to exercise their jurisdictirtn under section 438 Cr.p.C. by a wise and careful use of their -discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour.

122. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nahrre and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended befort: arrest is rnrlde; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the facr as ro whethbr the accused has previously undergont: imprisorunent on conviction by a Court in respect of anr. cognizable offence; (iii) The pc,ssibility of the applicant ro flee from justicel (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repear similtr or tlle other offences. (v) Wherr: the accusations have been made only with the object of irLjuring or humiliating the applicant by anesting him or her. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large ma1;nitude affecting a very large number of people. 6 KI.J C.l P. No.16l40 of2024 (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role o[ the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the hetp of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because o.ver implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of . harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused, (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant ofbail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail." tZ. tte Apex Court further held that arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of 7 KL,-I Crl. P No 16140 cf2024 that case. T'he Court must carefully examine the entir.e. available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to tlLe accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record.

13. The Apex Court further held that the aforesaid l'actors are only illustrati'rc. It is difficult to clearly visualize all siluation and circumstances in which a person may pray for anticipatory bail. If a wide discretion is exercised by the concemed judge .after consideration ol'entire material on record, then most of the grievances in favour of grant of or refusal of bail will be taken car,l of The legislature in its wisdom has entrusted the power to exei:cise this jurisdiction onrL) to the judges of the superior courts. In ccnsonance with the legislative intention, the discretion would be properly exercised.

14. The Apex Court further held that irrati,:nal and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights.

15. In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.p.2, a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex court referred to the third Report of the Nationat '?. ltss+; + scc zoo t 8 KI.J Crl.P. No 15I40 of2024 police commission in which it is mentioned that the quality of arrests by the police in India mentioned "powel of anest was one of the chief sources of comrption in the police' The report suggested that by and large nearly 600/, of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2o/o of the expendifure of the prison department,'. Personal liberty is a precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperativeaccordingtothepeculiarfactsandcircumstancesofthe case.

16. Relying on the said judgment, the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Dethi)3 held that despite several Law commission Reports and recommendations of several committees and commissions, arbitrary and groundless arrests continue as a pervasive phenomenon'Parliamenthasnotthought.itappropriatetocurtailthe power or discretion of the Courts, in granting pre-anest or anticipatory bail,especiallyregardingtheduration,ortillchargesheetisfiled'or in serious crimes. Therefore, it would not be in the larger interests of society if the court, by judicial interpretation, limits the exercise of thatpower:thedangerofsuchanexercisewouldbethatinfractions, r. (zozo) s scc t 9 KI,J Crl.P. No 16140 of2024 little by little, the discretion, advisedly kept wide, would shrink to a very narrow ard unrecognizably tiny portion, thus frusrrating the objective behinc the provision, which has stood the test of time, these 46 years

17. In Fireman Ghulam Mustafa v. State of Uttaranchala, the Apex Court held that to justilz a conviction under Section 307 of IPC, the Court has to see whether the act was done with the intention to commit murdr:r. Although the nature of injuries caused may be of assistance in crtrning to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention nay also be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of weapons used, parts of the body where the injuries were caused, severity of the blows given, the motive and other fact5 6f 16. case.

18. In Smt. Parisha Trivedi v. State of Chhatfisgarhs, wherein the Ctrhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur stressed upon the 177th Report c,f the Law Commission of India under th<: heading "INTRODUCTIION TO THE DOCTRINE OF ARREST", the same is relevant, it is extracted below: '. lzoroy rs scc zsu t. MCRCA No.94,t of 2r)24. decided on 23.0g.2024 10 KI.J Crl.P No.l6l40 of2024 "Liberty is the most precious of all the human rights. It has been the founding faith of the human race for more than 200 years. Both the American Declaration of Independence, 1776 and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, 1789, spoke of liberty being one of the natural and inalienable rights of man. The Universal -Declaration of Human fughts adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10-12-1948 contains several articles designed to protect and promote the liberty of individual. So does the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. Above all, Article 2l of the Constitution of lndia proclaims that no . one shall be deprived of his right to personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law' Even Articles 20(1) & (2) and Article 22 are born out of a concem for human liberty. As it is often said, 'one realises the value of liberty only when he is deprived of it'' Liberty, atong with equality is the most fundamental of human rights and the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Of equal importance'is the maintenance of peace, law and order in the society' Unless, there is peace, no real progress is possible. Societal peace lends stability and security to the polity. It provides the necessary conditions for growth, whether it is in the economic sphere or in the scientific and technological spheres'"

19. In the light of said discussion and the principle laid down the aforesaid decisions, prima facie, the allegations levelled against KI*J Crl.P l.lo 16140 of2024 the petitioner zrr'|r serious in nature. The Investigating officer recorded the statements o I the aforesaid witnesses.

20. It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein :s accused No.2 in Crimer No.l53 of 2024 pending on the very satrie police Station. He vrzLs arrested on 12.11.2024 and, released on bail on 09.01.2025. T'he allegations levelled against the petitioner in the present crime an<l in Crime No. 153 of 2024, cause of action and place of incident etcr.. are different. prima facie, there are specific allegations agairrst the petitioner herein in the present crime. Therefore, this Crrurt is not inclined to grant anticipatory bait to the petitioner herein.

21. The present Criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequcl thereto. miscellaneous petitions, if any, pen,ling in the criminal petition shall stand closed. Sd/- P.CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII To (i'\L 1' The Judiciar Firsr crass Magistrate, Kodangar at Vikarabad district. ' IYr""?"";1",3:+]'0"" 3. The Station Hous,'e Officer,.g9.Ttqppu, police Station, Vikarabad district. 4 one cc to sRl M A K MukHEe-oJnirJJ"[j<iiiicf 5. Two CD Copies Prosicutor, Hisn bd,.ti"iiii. sirt" or i.,rns,n, ,t becrrON OFFICER o I i l I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 1010112025 ORDER CRLP.No.16140 of 2024 i,l;* "'u ;4 s( \. '.^ ,.\ D5 fiq rus I 'i\g::E}2 t ! \..'?\." CRL.PETITION IS DISMISSED i? @l{ v