ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), is filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Accused No.6, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.187 of 2024 of Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur District. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner/accused No.6 and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 166, 167, 197,307, 326, 465, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). 3. The Prosecution asserts that the defacto complainant sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur, stating that a false case (FIR No.12/2021, dated 14.05.2021) was filed against him by the CBCID of Andhra Pradesh. He claims that on 14.05.2021, he was arrested unlawfully at his residence in Hyderabad without a medical examination despite having recently undergone heart surgery. He was physically dragged into a police vehicle, taken to Guntur, and detained without proper legal procedures. During detention at the CID office, he was tortured, including being beaten, verbally abused, and denied medication. He was also threatened with death for criticizing the Chief Minister. His injuries were not reported by hospital officials who colluded with police officers to falsify medical reports despite the severity of his injuries. The complainant claims that due to the brutality, he was transferred to an Army hospital, where medical reports revealed fractures in his feet, contradicting the false reports from Guntur General Hospital. Despite these allegations, no case of police brutality was filed, allegedly due to the influence of Mr Jagan Mohan Reddy. The complainant seeks legal action against the accused for attempted murder, custodial torture, and criminal conspiracy. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that he was initially not named in the FIR and was only added as A.6 after his arrest, with no prima facie material linking him to the crime. The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 179 of B.N.S.S. to appear before the Respondent Police but requested an alternative date and documents, which were not provided. Despite complying with the notice, the petitioner was arrested without explanation, violating Supreme Court guidelines. The arrest and detention are arbitrary, contrary to constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22. The petitioner's arrest appears to result from malice and a desire to falsely implicate him due to his association with former police officials. Despite complying with the notice, the petitioner was arrested without explanation, violating Supreme Court guidelines. The arrest and detention are arbitrary, contrary to constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22. The petitioner's arrest appears to result from malice and a desire to falsely implicate him due to his association with former police officials. There is no risk of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence. The police's claim that the petitioner failed to cooperate is unfounded, as he had previously requested relevant documents. The petitioner's father filed a Habeas Corpus petition, and the investigation is almost completed, with no criminal history attached to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner because the investigation was still pending. 6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions, which are on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report. 7. This Court, while dismissing the bail application in Crl.P.No.436 of 2025, granted the liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies before the Court below. According to the observations made by this Court, the petitioner approached the Sessions Court seeking bail, but the same was dismissed. 8. In Masroor V. State of U.P. , [ (2009) 14 SCC 286 ] , a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: 13. … Though at the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided, but there is a need to indicate in such order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. 9. According to the Prosecution's case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he physically restrained the victim in an attempt to kill him and make it appear like a heart attack by sitting on his chest, fully cognizant of the fact that the victim had undergone open-heart surgery just a few weeks before the alleged incident. The report asserts that the victim's legs were tied, and he was beaten with a rubber belt, lathe, and other weapons for 30 minutes. This alleged torture is said to have been repeated five times without even providing the victim with water or medical attention. The report asserts that the victim's legs were tied, and he was beaten with a rubber belt, lathe, and other weapons for 30 minutes. This alleged torture is said to have been repeated five times without even providing the victim with water or medical attention. As seen from the record, the case at hand pertains to a victim, Sri K. Raghuram Krishnam Raju, who was a Member of Parliament representing Narasapuram and is approximately 62 years of age and presently. He is a Member of the Legislative Assembly from Undi Constituency of West Godavari District and the Deputy Speaker. On behalf of the Prosecution, it is submitted that the petitioner's involvement was purportedly established through the statements of LWs.34, 55, and 23, officers from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, granted bail to the accused A.4 by order dated 12.02.2025 in Crl. M.P.No.145 of 2025, observing that A.4 was arrested on 26.11.2024; A.4 had been taken into police custody on two occasions by the investigating officer, during which 69 witnesses were examined; A.4 has been in judicial custody for over 70 days, and the investigating officer had already obtained the necessary information during the period of police custody, thereby negating the necessity for continued detention. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail petition of the present Petitioner (A.6) as per orders in Crl. M.P.No.295 of 2025, dated 10.03.2025, notwithstanding the circumstances surrounding the petitioner, which are more favourable than those of Accused No.4. It is undisputed that Petitioner/A.6 was arrested on 08.01.2025 and produced before the jurisdictional magistrate on 09.01.2025. The record reveals that the Respondent/police filed two petitions before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, securing police custody for A.6 from 27.01.2025 to 29.01.2025 and 13.02.2025 to 14.02.2025. 12. According to the Prosecution’s case, witnesses have stated that they observed four individuals arriving at the CID office and ascending to the floor where the victim was being held. These individuals were reportedly wearing masks, and one of them, described as tall and heavy with a massive physical frame, was said to be the Petitioner/A.6. The Prosecution asserts that the victim identified the petitioner during a test identification parade. These individuals were reportedly wearing masks, and one of them, described as tall and heavy with a massive physical frame, was said to be the Petitioner/A.6. The Prosecution asserts that the victim identified the petitioner during a test identification parade. However, the counsel for the petitioner argues that, given the individual was allegedly wearing a mask, it would not have been possible to identify the person in question, and the investigation does not disclose that the victim had an opportunity to identify the petitioner as the mask was removed. The Prosecution's case is primarily based on the statements of witnesses LWs.58 and 59, who claim that the petitioner confessed to his involvement in the commission of the offence. At best, this could be an extra-judicial confession made during the investigation. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the extra-judicial confession is generally regarded as a weak form of evidence. It is well- established in law that the Court should not begin with a presumption that an extra-judicial confession is inherently weak. Instead, the weight of such evidence depends on the credibility of the witnesses to whom the confession was made. It is within the Court's discretion to determine the acceptability of this evidence, taking into account the trustworthiness of the witnesses involved. 14. The Petitioner/A.6 contends that in the report given by the Defacto Complainant, there is no mention of A.6's participation in the crime. According to the report, it is stated that another officer sat on the victim's chest, where the victim had undergone surgery, pressing down in an apparent attempt to kill him. Notably, the petitioner is not an officer. Upon perusal of the report, the specific allegations are directed toward two IPS officers. 15. The petitioner’s counsel contends that the report does not state that the Defacto Complainant could identify the individual who allegedly sat on his chest; the victim could not have any opportunity to identify such masked persons; the material placed on record fails to show any prima facie direct connection between A.6 and the alleged crime. 16. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned senior counsel appearing for the State, submits that the facts of A.4 are not on the same footing as those related to A.6. The allegations against the petitioner are that, under the guise of being a legal advisor to the CBCID, A.6 received Rs. 16. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned senior counsel appearing for the State, submits that the facts of A.4 are not on the same footing as those related to A.6. The allegations against the petitioner are that, under the guise of being a legal advisor to the CBCID, A.6 received Rs. 48 lakhs from the state exchequer on 06.10.2020; the petitioner only appeared for the All India Bar examination in 2023 and was enrolled as an advocate on 16.11.2021. While opposing the grant of bail to A.4, the learned counsel highlights that as per the orders passed by the Sessions Judge in Crl. M.P.No.145 of 2025, the payment of Rs. 48 lakhs was made to A.6 under the pretence of providing legal advice to the APCID, suggesting a fraudulent transaction. However, even assuming the allegations are true, the material on record has yet to establish any direct link between this alleged transaction and the current accusations against the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel contends that, given the lack of connection between the fraudulent transaction and the charges at hand, the continued detention of A.6 may not be justified. 17. The two paramount considerations, namely, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with prosecution evidence, relate to ensuring a fair case trial in the course of justice. Due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. 18. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI , [ (2012) 1 SCC 40 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: 21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by a reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of the trial could be a cause of great hardship. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of the trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter upon which he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content. It would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct, whether the accused has been convicted for it or not, or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 19. At this stage, the allegations against the petitioner are subject to the trial's outcome. The trial is anticipated to take a considerable amount of time. Bail serves the purpose of allowing an accused to remain free until his guilt or innocence is determined. 20. The petitioner's continued preventive custody cannot be based on an unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre- trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. 21. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre- trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. 21. In light of the fact that A.4, against whom the primary accusations of being the responsible officer permitting individuals to commit custodial torture against the defacto complainant/victim made, has been granted bail, and after considering the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that further detention of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of conducting further investigation. 22. The record indicates that the petitioner has a permanent abode, and there is no reasonable concern of absconding. The trial's start remains uncertain as the investigation is incomplete, and there is no material that granting bail would hinder justice. A.6 has been in judicial custody for 77 days, with two prior police custody periods, and LWs.1 to 69 have been examined. The investigation into the petitioner's role is mostly completed. Given these facts, the Court finds that releasing the petitioner on bail would not cause hampering the investigation. However, due to the serious allegations against the petitioner, the Court will impose stringent conditions to ensure the petitioner's attendance during the investigation and trial. 23. Given the discussion made hereinabove, without commenting anything on the merits, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: (a) The petitioner/A.6 shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur. (b) On release, the petitioner/accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer twice a week, i.e., every Sunday and Wednesday between 10.00 AM and 01.00 PM for three months. (c) While attending the police station, the petitioner shall refrain from participating in any procession that may be perceived as an attempt to exert influence. Additionally, the petitioner shall not be accompanied to the police station by more than one person. (c) While attending the police station, the petitioner shall refrain from participating in any procession that may be perceived as an attempt to exert influence. Additionally, the petitioner shall not be accompanied to the police station by more than one person. (d) The petitioner/A.6 shall not directly or indirectly contact or threaten the witnesses under any circumstances, and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt to influence the witnesses, shall not tamper with evidence, and shall cooperate with the investigation. (e) The petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions, and breach of any of them will be viewed seriously. The Prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.