Boda Venkanna & Anr. vs The State Of Telangana

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

The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.5 and 6 in FIR No.477 of 2026 on the file of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 108, 85, 82 read with 49 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, “DP Act”).

Heard Mr.Mahesh Kosgi, 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 the de facto complainant, who is the brother of deceased No.1, lodged a report stating that deceased No.1 was married to accused No.1 and that they were blessed with two sons, i.e., deceased Nos.2 and 3. It is alleged that, subsequent to the marriage, accused No.1 began demanding additional dowry and subjected deceased No.1 to physical and mental cruelty. Thereafter, accused No.1 allegedly developed an illicit relationship and contracted a second marriage.

It is further alleged that, although the elders intervened, their efforts did not yield any positive result, and accused No.1 continued to harass deceased No.1. Subsequently, in the presence of the family elders, an agreement was arrived at whereby the parents of accused No.1 agreed to settle properties in the names of the children through deceased No.1, i.e., deceased Nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter, accused No.1 is alleged to have threatened deceased No.1 by stating that, if deceased Nos.1 to 3 were killed, the question of transferring the property in their favour would not arise. According to the complaint, deceased No.1 had informed the de facto complainant of the said threat.

On 31.03.2026, the de facto complainant received information that his sister (deceased No.1) and deceased Nos.2 and 3 were found dead at their residence. Entertaining suspicion regarding the involvement of accused No.1, his second wife, his parents, and the present petitioners in conspiring against the deceased persons, the de facto complainant lodged the report, on the basis of which the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are vague and omnibus in nature, and that the complaint does not attribute any specific overt act to either of the petitioners. It is contended that they have been implicated solely on account of their relationship with accused No.1. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are permanent residents of Warangal and have been residing separately, whereas the deceased and the family of accused No.1 were residing at Hyderabad. It is, therefore, contended that there is no proximate circumstance indicating the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged occurrence. It is further argued that, even according to the averments in the complaint, there is no allegation that the petitioners played any role in the alleged harassment of the deceased, much less in the commission of the offence in question. It is also submitted that the petitioners had no involvement whatsoever in the personal affairs of accused No.1 and deceased No.1.

Learned counsel further submits, on instructions, that upon completion of the investigation, the prosecution intends to delete the other penal provisions initially invoked and retain only the offence punishable under Section 108 of the BNS. It is contended that there are no positive circumstances or material indicating abetment, common intention, or any concerted act on the part of the petitioners so as to attract liability under the said provision.

It is further submitted that petitioner No.2 (accused No.6) recently delivered a baby and, during the relevant period, was pregnant and unavailable. It is submitted that she is presently required to take care of her three-month-old infant. Learned counsel also points out that accused Nos.1 to 3 and 7 have already been arrested and have been granted regular bail. On these grounds, prays for anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioners.

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

The principal allegation against the petitioners is that they actively participated in the commission of the offence resulting in the deaths of deceased Nos.1 to 3. However, at the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence collected during the investigation or record findings on the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations. The jurisdiction at this stage is limited to examining whether a prima facie case for custodial interrogation is made out and whether the applicant has established grounds warranting the exercise of the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.

The Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, authoritatively held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy intended to protect individual liberty against unwarranted arrest and should be exercised on the facts and circumstances of each case. Likewise, in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Supreme Court reiterated that custodial interrogation should not be resorted to unless it is shown to be necessary for a fair and effective investigation. Similarly, in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench held that while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court must balance the competing interests of a free and fair investigation and the fundamental right to personal liberty.

Having regard to the material placed before this Court, it is evident that, except for the petitioners' relationship with accused No.1 and the allegation regarding the presence of petitioner No.1 (accused No.5) at the time of the second marriage of accused No.1, no specific overt act has been attributed to either of the petitioners. At this stage, no prima facie material has been brought on record to indicate their active participation in the commission of the alleged offence or to establish circumstances necessitating their custodial interrogation. The petitioners have also expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, subject to such conditions to ensure their cooperation with the investigation and to safeguard the interests of prosecution.

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.