ORDER : V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J. This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 437 and 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure), is filed by the petitioner/A.6 seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.187 of 2024 of Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 166, 167, 197, 307, 326, 465 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. 2. Heard arguments of Sri K.S.Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel being assisted by Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1-State and Sri V.V.Lakshmi Narayana, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/victim/de facto complainant. 3. The considerations that would normally weigh with the Court while dealing with a bail petition are the nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, circumstances peculiar to the accused and the larger interest of the public or the State also have to be considered. 4. Religious scriptures of many faiths inform the humanity that the sinners will be tortured in hell. However, on a rare occasion one comes across lathis assuming the power of divinity use the police stations for torturing the suspects or accused even before the guilt of the suspect/accused is determined by judicial forums. The case at hand pertains to a victim being tortured on 14.05.2021/15.05.2021 in the CBCID Office, Guntur. Sri K.Raghurama Krishnam Raju, aged 62 years, was formerly a Member of Parliament from Narsapuram Constituency of Andhra Pradesh and presently he is a Member of Legislative Assembly from Undi Constituency of West Godavari District and is also the Deputy Speaker. He was stated to be an accused in F.I.R.No.12 of 2021. On his allegations of torture meted out to him he gave written information and that was registered as F.I.R. in Crime No.187 of 2024 at Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur District. He was stated to be an accused in F.I.R.No.12 of 2021. On his allegations of torture meted out to him he gave written information and that was registered as F.I.R. in Crime No.187 of 2024 at Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur District. The narration of events could best be captured through what he had mentioned in his written information and the same reads as below: “Subject: Complaint Regarding Attempted Murder, Custodial Torture, and Criminal Conspiracy To: Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. Date: June 11, 2024 Introduction: 1, Mr. K Raghurama Krishnam Raju, aged 62 years, son of KVSSN Raju, former Member of Parliament from Narasapuram, Andhra Pradesh, and presently elected as MLA of Undi, West Godavari district, am writing to report serious offenses related to my arrest and subsequent treatment in custody. This complaint addresses allegations of attempted marder, custodial torture, and criminal conspiracy. Background: A false case was registered against me by the CBCID of the Andhra Pradesh government (FIR No. 12/2021, dated May 14, 2021). On May 14, 2021, I was arrested without due process, including the absence of a medical examination or adherence to proper legal procedures. It is pertinent to note that I had undergone cardiac surgery few weeks before the arrest and was recuperating at home at the time of my arrest. I was arrested on May 14, 2021, at 5 pm in Hyderabad, Telangana. The rule of law required that I be produced before the local magistrate in Hyderabad and undergo a medical examination. Instead, I was bullied, unlawfully physically pulled inside the police vehicle, and forcibly taken to Guntur the same night. I was kept in the CBCID OFFICE, Guntur from 9:30 pm onwards. I was not given my medicines despite having had open-heart bypass surgery a few weeks before the arrest. As a sitting MP, no permission of the Speaker of Lok Sabha was obtained before my arrest. Apprehending police torture and murder, I had Y Category Police Protection by the Central Government, which was deliberately denied to me. Incident Details: Following my arrest, the police arrived at my Hyderabad residence and transported me to the CBCID regional office in Guntur. Despite my critical health condition, I was denied medical aid and food. Apprehending police torture and murder, I had Y Category Police Protection by the Central Government, which was deliberately denied to me. Incident Details: Following my arrest, the police arrived at my Hyderabad residence and transported me to the CBCID regional office in Guntur. Despite my critical health condition, I was denied medical aid and food. During my detention, I was subjected to physical abuse, including being beaten with rubber belt and lathi and an attempt to suffocate me by sitting on my chest and choke my heart which I firmly believe was an intentional attempt to murder me. At around 11:30 pm the same night, Mr. PV Sunil Kumar IPS, the then DG of CBCID, along with Mr. Seetharamanjaneyulu IPS and other police subordinates, came to the room where I was illegally kept in the CBCID Police Office. My legs were tied up with ropes, preventing me from moving. They started beating me with rubber belt and lathi and other weapons for almost 30 minutes initially. I was crying in pain with bloodied feet. The same torture continued 5 times more without allowing me even water or medicines. They were abusing me with filthy language and threatening to kill me for criticizing the then Chief Minister, Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy. One officer showed a video of the torture to the Chief Minister. Another officer sat on my chest where the surgery had taken place, pressing down in an attempt to kill me and make it appear as a heart attack. Somehow, I survived. My phone was taken, and I was beaten until I provided the password. My bed was broken due to beating me on the bed and I was made to sleep broken bed. I can identify all the officials who committed these crimes. When you register the FIR, I will submit the fall details. The next day, I narrated the entire event to the Magistrate, who recorded the injuries and recording that it was a custodial torture sent me to Govt General Hospital instead of Police or Judicial Custody. After I was admitted in the General Hospital Mr Sunil Kumar DG came to the Hospital the same night i.e on 15th night and was threatening the Doctors not to report the critical injuries I suffered in the hands of Police. After I was admitted in the General Hospital Mr Sunil Kumar DG came to the Hospital the same night i.e on 15th night and was threatening the Doctors not to report the critical injuries I suffered in the hands of Police. One Dr Prabhavathi, the then Superintendent colluded with Mr Sunil Kumar and obtained the falsified medical reports that there were no injuries on the body. Due to the police brutality, I was shifted from Guntur to Secunderabad Army Hospital by the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter I was granted bail by the Supreme Court. Army Hospital medical reports revealed that I had fractures in my feet in complete contrast to the medical reports of Dr Prabhavathi. Despite this, the case of police brutality against a Member of Parliament was never registered by the police under Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy's influence. Copies of the medical reports are enclosed which clearly proved that the medical reports given by Dr Prabhavathi were concocted and falsified to cover up the atrocities committed by Police. Accused Individuals: The officers involved in these heinous acts include: ? Mr. PV Sunil Kumar, DG CBCID ? Mr. Seetharamanjaneyulu, IPS ? Mr. YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, the then Chief Minister ? Mr. R.Vijaya Paul, Addl. Supdt of Police, CBCID ? Dr. Prabhavathi and other doctors who gave false medical reports Additionally, Mr. PV Sunil Kumar threatened me that I would be killed if I were to criticize the then Chief Minister Mr. YS Jagan Mohan Reddy. Legal Provisions: The acts of the accused officers constitute grave violations under various legal provisions: ? Attempted Murder: The deliberate acts to cause physical harm, including beatings and attempts to suffocate, clearly indicate an intention to cause death. ? Custodial Torture The right to life and personal liberty is violated through the acts of torture and denial of medical aid, constituting inhuman and degrading treatment. ? Criminal Conspiracy The coordinated actions of the officers and the involvement of the then Chief Minister in orchestrating these acts indicate a clear conspiracy to harm and silence me. Medical Evidence: I have attached copies of medical reports that substantiate the custodial torture and attempted murder. These documents provide concrete evidence supporting my claims. Conspiracy Allegations: I have reason to believe that this was a conspiracy orchestrated by Mr. YS Jagan Mohan Reddy and others. Medical Evidence: I have attached copies of medical reports that substantiate the custodial torture and attempted murder. These documents provide concrete evidence supporting my claims. Conspiracy Allegations: I have reason to believe that this was a conspiracy orchestrated by Mr. YS Jagan Mohan Reddy and others. I request an immediate investigation into the actions of the accused officers and the then Chief Minister. Conclusion: I demand that a case be registered against all accused individuals for attempted murder, custodial torture, and criminal conspiracy. These serious criminal offenses must be addressed promptly and justice be done.” 5. The present petitioner is Sri Kamepalli Tulasi Babu. He was arrested on 08.01.2025 and was remanded to judicial custody on 09.01.2025. He seeks regular bail. He is not a police officer. What he is finds no mention in the bail petition. However, prosecution filed additional papers with due notice to the learned counsel for petitioner disclosing that he was a legal assistant in CID, Andhra Pradesh. He was entrusted with various case files including the case file pertaining to Crime No.12 of 2021 CID Police Station registered against Sri K.Raghurama Krishnam Raju, who is the victim in the present case and accused in the said Crime No.12 of 2021. Therefore, his affinity with CID is a matter of fact. As per the record, the investigation officer served a notice and the petitioner appeared before the investigation officer and after questioning him he was arrested and was thereafter remanded to judicial custody. By the time the bail petition was filed on 10.01.2025 certain legal events were yet to take place. On behalf of the State, it was informed to this Court that the test identification parade was conducted by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate and during those proceedings the victim in the present case had clearly identified the present petitioner as one of the assailants. That obviates any further discussion on the identity of the masked persons referred in the F.I.R. The further event informed by the State is that on 15.01.2025 State moved a petition before the learned Magistrate seeking police custody of this petitioner. After due hearing, the same was granted by an order dated 24.01.2025 by virtue of which police availed the custody of this petitioner from 27.01.2025-29.01.2025. During hearing of the present bail petition, the submission of the State was that the petitioner failed to cooperate with the investigation. After due hearing, the same was granted by an order dated 24.01.2025 by virtue of which police availed the custody of this petitioner from 27.01.2025-29.01.2025. During hearing of the present bail petition, the submission of the State was that the petitioner failed to cooperate with the investigation. This was opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Be that as it may. When this matter has been coming up for further hearing, it was represented on behalf of the State that it had further moved Crl.M.P.No.564 of 2025 before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur for another spell of police custody. It intended to submit arguments subsequent to the orders in the said police custody petition. That was objected to by the learned counsel for petitioner stating that consideration of bail plea cannot be perennially adjourned simply because a police custody petition is pending and pendency of a petition seeking police custody can be no hindrance to hear and dispose of a bail petition. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State stated that a petition for bail and a petition for police custody are two different proceedings. 6. In this regard, one is required to notice what is mentioned in Section 187(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: “187(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, irrespective of whether he has or has no jurisdiction to try the case, after taking into consideration whether such person has not been released on bail or his bail has been cancelled, authorise, from time to time, the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole, or in parts, at any time during the initial forty days or sixty days out of detention period of sixty days or ninety days, as the case may be, as provided in sub-section (3), and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction.” 7. The words whether such person has not been released on bail or his bail has been cancelled appear to give the meaning that the person whose custody is sought by police shall be a person who by then has been in judicial custody. The words whether such person has not been released on bail or his bail has been cancelled appear to give the meaning that the person whose custody is sought by police shall be a person who by then has been in judicial custody. The above provision does not appear to permit a reading that a person who is already on bail can also be directed to be taken in police custody. A free citizen facing an accusation of a crime loses his liberty when he is arrested by police. At that moment he is in the custody of police. Within 24 hours from then he should be produced before a Judicial Magistrate of First Class. If all the other legal requirements are satisfied, he would be remanded. The word ‘remand’ means sending from custody to custody. In other words, from the custody of the police the accused is transferred to the judicial custody. While he is in judicial custody, the police may seek for police custody once again. A prayer for bail when being ordered grants liberty to the individual and he is placed in the custody of baildars/sureties. It is difficult to think that a man released on bail can be sent to police custody. However, this aspect is left open since both sides did not make submissions in full flourish. Be that as it may. 8. It is in the above-referred circumstances, the present bail application has come up for consideration. 9. In the bail petition it is urged that the allegations in the F.I.R. and the connected record do not make out a prima facie case as against the present petitioner. He is totally unrelated to the crime and he is falsely implicated in this case with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance against him. None of the penal provisions alleged are applicable against the present petitioner. That the petitioner has strong roots in the community and abides to observe all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court in the event of his release. That material part of investigation is already over. 10. In the bail petition, it is mentioned that questioning the illegal arrest and violation of procedure, the father of the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1042 of 2025 (Habeas Corpus). That material part of investigation is already over. 10. In the bail petition, it is mentioned that questioning the illegal arrest and violation of procedure, the father of the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1042 of 2025 (Habeas Corpus). It is brought to the attention of this Court that a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 10.01.2025 after observing that this accused was already remanded to judicial custody closed the writ petition leaving it open to the accused to raise all issues relating to the nature of arrest, time of arrest etc., before the learned Magistrate. Therefore, nothing more need be stated about the said writ petition. 11. During hearing, the forceful submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner are that the material collected by the prosecution is artificial and LWs.58 and 59 are created witnesses and they are unreliable and they are not truthful and only with a view to extract confessions from this accused prosecution has been insisting for continuance of his detention. It is further argued that even as per the averments in the F.I.R. it was masked persons who participated in the alleged torture event and the victim could not have a clue to identify such masked persons. 12. It is further argued that even as per the averments in the F.I.R. it was masked persons who participated in the alleged torture event and the victim could not have a clue to identify such masked persons. 12. As against it, the learned Senior Counsel for State argued that the fact that the victim was tortured in CID Police Station was clear from the medical record furnished by the Army Hospital, Secunderabad which was duly considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with the bail petition of the present victim (as he was an accused in Crime No.12 of 2021).,[Sri Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju being accused in Crime No.12 of 2021 of CID, Police Station Mangalagiri, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh submitted his plea for bail in Crl.A.No.515 of 2021] which was granted by their Lordships by order dated 21.05.2021 At page No.10 of the said order their Lordships observed “In our view, considering the injuries as reported by the Medical Board of the Army Hospital, we can prima facie form an opinion that the appellant may have been ill-treated while in police custody.” Arguing about the role of the present petitioner/A.6 attention of this Court has been brought to the narration contained in the F.I.R and the statements of the witnesses recorded which include the statements of LW.34/Head Constable who was on watch duty at Regional Officer, CID, Guntur on 14.05.2021 and the statement of LW.55/Home Guard who was present at the front yard, Office of the CID, Guntur on 14.05.2021 and that of LW.23, who was Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Regional Office, CID, Guntur. The purport of the statements of all these witnesses is that they saw four persons reached the CID office and went to the floor where the present victim was kept in the CID Office and that those four persons were found wearing masks and after they went to the place where the present victim was kept, they heard cries of the victim. One would also see from the statements that one of those masked persons was tall and heavy and was a person with a massive physical frame. It is stated by the prosecution that the present petitioner is the said individual who is very tall with massive personality. Such physical description of the petitioner is admitted by the learned counsel for petitioner. 13. It is stated by the prosecution that the present petitioner is the said individual who is very tall with massive personality. Such physical description of the petitioner is admitted by the learned counsel for petitioner. 13. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1- State cited the following precedent: ? State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav., (1985) 1 SCC 552 ? Prem Chand (Paniwala) v. Union of India., (1981) 1 SCC 639 14. Responding to the comments made against LWs.58 and 59, the learned Senior Counsel representing the State argued that those two individuals have been close friends of this accused and some time after torture that was inflicted on the present victim when this petitioner accused and they met at different occasions at different places it was this petitioner accused who divulged the information of torture and his participation in it. Therefore, they are in the nature of extra judicial confessions and at this stage of the investigation the material as is placed before the Court is required to be considered. The learned Senior Counsel for State further argued that there is imminent investigative need to keep the present petitioner in custody and not to grant him bail since investigation is still under progress and the larger conspiracy is yet to be unearthed and the fact that when this petitioner was asked to appear before the police on 08.01.2025, he came along with a convoy of more than 20 vehicles followed by 100 of his followers who created havoc at the main entrance of District Police Office by raising slogans such as “Tulasi Babu zindabad” cannot be ignored. It is argued that this petitioner is politically influential and financially affluent and he is backed by powerful individuals and there is every likelihood of influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. 15. This Court considered the submissions made on both sides, carefully consulted the case record. 16. The deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons in an attempt to force another person to yield information or to make a confession or for any other reason can be stated to be torture. At the local level there is Police Manual directing the police officers not to use any force or cause any physical injury during interrogation of the person in custody. At the local level there is Police Manual directing the police officers not to use any force or cause any physical injury during interrogation of the person in custody. They were directed that no one shall be subjected to torture, or to be cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment against the persons in custody , [460-1-G and H AP Police Manual Part-I] . At the national level the mandate of the Constitution of India is that the life or personal liberty of a person shall not be deprived except according to procedure established by law. At the global there is United Nations Convention against torture (UNCAT) in terms of Resolution No.39/46 of the UN General Assembly dated 10.12.1984. India signed it in October, 1977. Despite all this the police and their legal advisor had other thoughts against an accused in the police custody. Specific overt acts are seen as against the petitioner since the case diary discloses that he is one person who sat on the chest of the victim knowing that the victim had undergone an open heart surgery only a few weeks earlier to his arrest in the said crime. The large framed petitioner when sat on the chest of a heart patient must be knowing pretty well as to what could be the possible consequence of it. In the very words of the victim such acts were resorted to only to see that he would suffer from heart problem and die in that way. It cannot be disputed that unlike in normal cases a case of torture of a person in police confines a different yardstick is to be considered as held by their Lordships in State of Jharkhand v. Sandeep Kumar , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 240] . 17. From what is stated above, this Court at this stage of investigation and in view of the nature of accusations made against this petitioner is not inclined to grant the prayer. 18. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is granted liberty to pursue appropriate legal proceedings before the Court below. What is stated in this petition is confined to this petition.