Bablu @ Golipally Navaneeth Reddy & Anr. vs The State Of Telangana

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

As the petitioners in both the criminal petitions are accused in the same crime and seeking analogous relief, these petitions are heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order.

The petitioners are arrayed as the accused Nos.1,3 and 4 in FIR No.1314 of 2026 on the file of Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 109 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr.Ramulu Pasupula, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.07.2026, at about 5:30 a.m., the de facto complainant, accompanied by his friend, visited Jasper Pub, Gachibowli, in connection with a business dispute between their group and Shree Goud, the owner of X-Lounge Pub, concerning the operation of Trojen Pub at Lulu Mall, Kukatpally. It is alleged that, during their visit, the accused picked up a quarrel with them. The accused allegedly abused and criminally intimidated the de facto complainant, and accused No.1 is alleged to have assaulted him with a beer bottle. The other accused allegedly instigated and participated in the assault, stating that the injured was responsible for their financial losses and that he should be eliminated. In the course of the incident, the de facto complainant sustained a severe bleeding injury to his head. When his friend attempted to intervene and rescue him, the other accused allegedly became involved in the altercation and assaulted him as well. On the basis of the report lodged by the de facto complainant, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. According to the learned counsel, even as per the complaint, the injured and his companion had come to the premises with an ulterior motive. It is further submitted that, from the averments in the complaint, the incident appears to have arisen out of a sudden quarrel and that the alleged injuries were caused in the course of the ensuing altercation, without any prior preparation or intention to cause such injuries. Learned counsel further submits that specific overt acts have been attributed by the de facto complainant only to accused Nos.1, 3 and

It is contended that accused Nos.3 and 4 have been implicated as abettors and that accused No.4 is alleged to have restrained the victim. According to the learned counsel, even on the basis of such allegations, invocation of Section 109 of the BNS for an offence of attempt to murder is improbable. Learned counsel argues that, the incident having arisen out of a sudden quarrel, the necessary element of common intention cannot be attributed to the petitioners. It is, however, submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that specific allegations have been made against the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners, acting in concert with the other accused, attacked the victim and caused severe injuries to him. The medical record, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, discloses that the victim sustained a depressed skull fracture and was consequently admitted as an inpatient for treatment. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that the presence of the petitioners may be required for custodial interrogation in order to facilitate an effective and comprehensive investigation. On these grounds, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed before this Court, the occurrence is alleged to have arisen in the early hours of 27.07.2026 out of a business dispute concerning the operation of Trojen Pub at Lulu Mall, Kukatpally, and, even according to the prosecution, commenced with a quarrel between the parties. At this stage, the allegations have to be considered not only with reference to the seriousness of the injury but also with reference to the specific role attributed to each petitioner, the circumstances of the occurrence, and the prima facie existence of the requisite intention or knowledge for the alleged offence.

Section 109 of the BNS, which deals with attempt to murder, requires the requisite intention or knowledge. The BNS separately recognises abetment under Sections 45 onwards, while Section 54 concerns an abettor present when the offence is committed. Thus, mere attribution of exhortation or abetment cannot, by itself, establish the ingredients of attempt to murder without examining the precise role and conduct attributed to the concerned accused.

In the present case, the overt act of striking the de facto complainant with a beer bottle is principally attributed to accused No.1. As against the petitioners, the allegations are that accused Nos.3 and 4 acted as abettors, accused No.4 restrained the victim, and the other accused instigated or participated in the altercation. No specific overt act of causing the serious head injury is attributed to the petitioners. The distinction in the individual roles assumes significance while considering anticipatory bail. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Supreme Court emphasised the necessity of examining the exact role attributed to the accused while considering pre-arrest protection.

The allegation that the incident arose from a sudden quarrel is also a relevant circumstance while assessing the alleged intention. In Dattatraya v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 167, the Supreme Court recognised that absence of premeditation and occurrence in the heat of passion may bear upon the question of intention, notwithstanding the gravity of the resultant injury. Though the said decision arose after trial, the principle is relevant at this stage to the limited extent of assessing whether an intention to cause death can be mechanically inferred from the seriousness of the injury.

The medical record showing a depressed skull fracture and inpatient treatment undoubtedly establishes the gravity of the injury; however, gravity of injury and culpable intention are distinct considerations. At the stage of anticipatory bail, this Court is not required to conclusively determine the guilt of the petitioners, but to assess the accusation, their individual roles, the surrounding circumstances and the necessity of custodial arrest.

In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench reaffirmed that anticipatory bail is a matter of judicial discretion and that appropriate conditions may be imposed to safeguard the investigation and interests of justice. The prosecution's submission that custodial interrogation may be required, by itself, is not sufficient to deny such protection. The necessity for custodial interrogation must be demonstrated with reference to the facts of the case. Here, the petitioners have undertaken to cooperate with the investigation, and no specific circumstance has been pointed out demonstrating that they are likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or that their custodial interrogation is indispensable for any particular investigative purpose. The interests of investigation can, therefore, be adequately protected through appropriate conditions.

Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the specific roles attributed to the petitioners, the genesis of the occurrence in a sudden quarrel arising out of a business dispute, the absence of a specific allegation that they caused the serious head injury, their willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and the absence of demonstrated necessity for custodial interrogation constitute sufficient grounds for extending protection under Section 482 BNSS.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions.

It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.