Criminal Procedure — Pre-arrest bail — Test Identification Parade — Gravity of offence — Custodial interrogation required — Denial of relief — Liberty to surrender Where Accused No.3 sought anticipatory bail in a case alleging robbery of gold ornaments with violent attack on a 60-year-old victim causing suffocation, the High Court noted specific overt acts, necessity of custodial interrogation, and requirement of Test Identification Parade before the Magistrate. Age and student status of petitioner held irrelevant to grant anticipatory relief when grave allegations exist. Pre-arrest bail is not a shield to perpetrators of barbaric acts but a protection only against falsified accusations. Petition dismissed; liberty granted to surrender within one week and seek regular bail, to be decided expeditiously within one week. (Vulavalapudi Lakshmi Narasimha v. State of A.P., Crl.P. No.11096/2025, decided 05-12-2025, per Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.)

Criminal Procedure — Pre-arrest bail — Test Identification Parade — Gravity of offence — Custodial interrogation required — Denial of relief — Liberty to surrender
Where Accused No.3 sought anticipatory bail in a case alleging robbery of gold ornaments with violent attack on a 60-year-old victim causing suffocation, the High Court noted specific overt acts, necessity of custodial interrogation, and requirement of Test Identification Parade before the Magistrate. Age and student status of petitioner held irrelevant to grant anticipatory relief when grave allegations exist. Pre-arrest bail is not a shield to perpetrators of barbaric acts but a protection only against falsified accusations. Petition dismissed; liberty granted to surrender within one week and seek regular bail, to be decided expeditiously within one week.
(Vulavalapudi Lakshmi Narasimha v. State of A.P., Crl.P. No.11096/2025, decided 05-12-2025, per Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.)

II. ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

1. Procedural Background

The Criminal Petition under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 sought pre-arrest bail by Accused No.3 in Crime No.108/2024 of Udayagiri Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, for alleged offences under Sections 109(1) and 304(2) of BNS.

2. Petitioner’s Submissions

The petitioner projected himself as:

• 21-year-old second-year B.Sc. (Computer Science) student,

• falsely implicated,

• merely accompanied others,

• possessing fixed residence,

• law-abiding, sincere and meritorious student,

• willing to abide by any conditions if bail is granted.

3. State’s Objections

The Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that:

• Specific overt acts are attributed against accused,

• Identification by victim before Magistrate is pending,

• Custodial interrogation is required,

• Investigation remains at progressive stage.

4. Findings on Allegations

The Court extracted key factual allegations:

• The de-facto complainant, aged 60 years, was attacked.

• Accused allegedly restrained her neck and hands,

• Two persons pressed her neck, causing suffocation,

• Gold chain was forcibly removed,

• The accused allegedly acted with intent even to kill for the booty.

These factual assertions supplied prima facie justification for investigatory identification mechanisms.

5. Legal Reasoning

The Court held:

• Test Identification Parade before the Magistrate in jail is required to confirm involvement.

• Custodial interrogation remains necessary.

Thus, the student status and young age cannot override:

• gravity of allegations,

• investigative requirements, and

• nature of allegations involving violence and robbery.

The Court reiterated that:

Pre-arrest bail is not a licence for persons facing grave allegations nor a shield for those alleged to have indulged in barbaric conduct — it exists to protect innocents facing fabricated accusations.

Hence, anticipatory bail was declined.

III. CONCLUSION

• Petition dismissed.

• Liberty granted to petitioner to surrender before Jurisdictional Magistrate within one week of receipt of order.

• Upon surrender, petitioner may file appropriate application for relief.

• The Magistrate was directed to consider the application on its merits, after hearing both sides, within one week.