POLAMARASETTY RATNARAJU Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the BNSS by the Petitioner/Accused No.7 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.382 of 2024 of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Ss. 109, 308(5), 318(4), 127(2), 131, 351(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 the BNS and 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 the IT Act.

(2.) Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant proceedings and asserts that no offence, as alleged in the complaint, has been committed by him. It is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family, and any coercive action, including arrest, would result in grave and irreparable hardship to his dependent family members. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with a permanent place of residence and is willing to comply with any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner himself is a victim in the hand of the Accused No.1, the Petitioner has transferred Rs.7.00 lakhs to the account of the accused No.1. The petitioner was in judicial custody in another crime. The police have not chosen to file PT warrant and get it executed in this case. The police purposefully to harass the petitioner implicated the petitioner in this case falsely. Except one bald statement in the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant there is no allegation against the petitioner. The Petitioner undertakes to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assures the Court of his continued presence as and when required and it is urged to enlarged the petitioner on bail

(3.) Learned 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 and it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.7 in the interest of justice and equity.