BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 – S. 482 – Anticipatory bail – Allegation of rape against police officer – Possibility of influencing witness – Threats by family members of accused – Custodial protection declined – Scope. Petitioner/Circle Inspector of Police sought anticipatory bail in crime registered for offence punishable under Section 64(1) BNS on allegation that he forcibly committed rape on defacto complainant who was known to him for several years – Prosecution alleged that petitioner used to reside in rented premises of complainant and on date of incident entered her room and committed forcible sexual assault – Petitioner contended that complaint was false, motivated and intended to defame him professionally and personally; further contended that he was willing to cooperate with investigation and statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had already been recorded – State opposed anticipatory bail contending that investigation was incomplete and that petitioner, being police officer, was in position to influence witnesses – Case diary disclosed that petitioner’s son allegedly threatened defacto complainant through phone calls and messages warning of false cases for defamation, cheating and honey trapping.

advocatemmmohan

AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT

BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 – S. 482 – Anticipatory bail – Allegation of rape against police officer – Possibility of influencing witness – Threats by family members of accused – Custodial protection declined – Scope.

Petitioner/Circle Inspector of Police sought anticipatory bail in crime registered for offence punishable under Section 64(1) BNS on allegation that he forcibly committed rape on defacto complainant who was known to him for several years – Prosecution alleged that petitioner used to reside in rented premises of complainant and on date of incident entered her room and committed forcible sexual assault – Petitioner contended that complaint was false, motivated and intended to defame him professionally and personally; further contended that he was willing to cooperate with investigation and statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had already been recorded – State opposed anticipatory bail contending that investigation was incomplete and that petitioner, being police officer, was in position to influence witnesses – Case diary disclosed that petitioner’s son allegedly threatened defacto complainant through phone calls and messages warning of false cases for defamation, cheating and honey trapping.

Held : In considering prayer for anticipatory bail, Court must assess not only nature and gravity of allegations but also likelihood of accused interfering with investigation or influencing witnesses. Where accused occupies influential official position and material on record prima facie discloses attempts by persons connected to accused to threaten or pressurize victim, grant of pre-arrest bail would seriously prejudice fair investigation.

Material placed before Court, including allegations regarding threatening phone calls and messages by petitioner’s son to defacto complainant while she was at police station, prima facie indicated possibility of influencing or prevailing upon victim. Position held by petitioner as Circle Inspector of Police further strengthened apprehension of interference with investigation.

In view of seriousness of allegations under Section 64(1) BNS and likelihood of tampering with investigation or influencing victim, Court held that case was not fit for exercise of discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

Observations made while deciding anticipatory bail application are only prima facie and shall not influence investigation or trial on merits.

(Paras 4 to 9)

HELD

While considering anticipatory bail, Court is entitled to examine likelihood of accused interfering with investigation or influencing witnesses, particularly where accused holds influential official position. (Paras 4 and 7)

Prima facie material showing threats or pressure upon victim by persons connected with accused constitutes relevant circumstance for refusing pre-arrest bail. (Paras 4 and 6)

Gravity of allegations involving offence under Section 64(1) BNS coupled with apprehension of influencing victim justified refusal of anticipatory bail. (Para 7)

Observations in anticipatory bail proceedings are preliminary in nature and do not amount to expression on merits of prosecution case. (Para 8)

RESULT

Criminal Petition dismissed. Petitioner held not entitled to anticipatory bail in Crime No.99 of 2026 of Vinukonda Police Station registered for offence under Section 64(1) BNS.