JUDGMENT : This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner – A2 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Cr.No. 88 of 2013 of Musheerabad Police Station, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354 and 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material placed on record. As seen from the contents of the complaint, the de facto complainant – G. Ambika alleged that the petitioner herein, who is her father-in-law, used to harass her by uttering obscene words and tried to touch her. It is also her case that though she informed the acts of the petitioner to her husband, her husband asked her to bear such things. The petitioner is also alleged to have harassed her demanding additional dowry. It appears that on 20.03.2013, the de facto complainant, through his brother, filed a complaint at the Gandhinagar Police Station against her husband – A1. It is alleged that on the same day after returning from the police station, the other accused and the petitioner-A2 beat the de facto complainant. The petitioner-A2 is alleged to have kicked the de facto complainant in her stomach. When the de facto complainant raised cries, the neighbours informed about the incident to her parents, who gave oral complaint at Musheerabad Police Station and the police immediately sent the de facto complainant to Gandhi Hospital, Secuderabad for medical treatment. On 24.03.2013, the de facto complainant lodged the complaint at Musheerabad Police Station, Hyderabad which was registered as Cr.No. 88 of 2013. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that on 20.03.2013 itself, the victim was sent to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for medical treatment and the doctors found abrasions on certain parts of her body. The learned counsel for the petitioner – A2 submits that the incident occurred on 20.03.2013, but the complaint was given on 24.03.2013. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 65 years and a heart patient and he requires constant medical treatment, as such, he may be granted anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is a discretionary remedy. Discretionary relief cannot be granted unless there are special circumstances. Such relief cannot be granted in a casual manner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 65 years and a heart patient and he requires constant medical treatment, as such, he may be granted anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is a discretionary remedy. Discretionary relief cannot be granted unless there are special circumstances. Such relief cannot be granted in a casual manner. The Court must examine the following circumstances: i) The nature and gravity of the offence ii) In case of economic offences which are anti-national, the magnitude of the offence and its implication on national economy, development should be kept in mind. iii) Merely because other accused are granted anticipatory bail, there is no criteria to grant blanket anticipatory bail without considering the facts and the specific role of each accused. iv) The Court should consider whether granting of anticipatory bail hampers the investigating agency. v) Whether the investigating agency would be prevented from seizing any material documents and objects at the instance of the accused. vi) Whether release of accused would create fear to the important prosecution witnesses. vii) Whether there is any likelihood of threatening the witnesses. The Court must be satisfied that no prima facie case is made out against the accused, where, on the face of it, is clear that the accused is falsely implicated or in all probabilities it appears to be a case of false implication or where omnibus allegations are made or where the accused concerned appears to have been roped in a group of large number of accused, the Court may consider the applications of anticipatory bail. It is most unfortunate that in many cases influential and powerful accused are escaping arrest by taking advantage of the relief available under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Having regard to the specific allegations made by the victim in her complaint and having regard to the fact that on 20.03.2013 itself doctors noted certain injuries on the person of the de facto complainant, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioner to surrender before XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and move an application for bail, and on such application being filed, the learned Magistrate may consider and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.