Chikkudu Jagan vs State Of Telangana & Anr.

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 petitioner is arrayed as the accused No.2 in FIR No.73 of 2026 on the file of Amrabad Police Station, Nagarkurnool District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 126(2), 353 read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr.Salimoddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that, owing to previous enmity arising out of a dispute concerning village road repair work, accused Nos. 1 to 3, acting in furtherance of their common intention, allegedly waylaid the injured and assaulted him with an iron rod and stones, thereby causing him grievous injuries, with an intention to cause his death. The injured was rescued by the eyewitnesses and thereafter shifted to the hospital for treatment. Based on the report lodged by the mother of the injured, a crime was registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he is innocent of the allegations levelled against him. It is contended that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner and that there is no incriminating material on record connecting him with the alleged offences.

It is further submitted that accused No. 1 has already been arrested and has already been enlarged on bail by observing that the investigation has been completed. However, no material has, so far, been brought on record implicating the petitioner in the alleged offences. Nonetheless the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition that may be imposed. On these grounds prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submits that specific allegations have been made against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the statements of the eyewitnesses as well as the injured/victim prima facie disclose the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submits that the medical certificate indicates that the victim sustained grievous injuries. Since specific material is available on record against the petitioner and his custodial interrogation is stated to be necessary for the purpose of further investigation, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the bail application.

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

The allegation against the petitioner is that, owing to previous enmity arising out of a dispute relating to village road repair work, the petitioner, along with two other accused, allegedly attacked the victim with stones and an iron rod with the intention of causing his death. It is further alleged that, upon the intervention of the mother and wife of the victim and other persons present at the scene of occurrence, the victim was rescued and thereafter shifted for medical treatment.

It is well settled that the jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail is discretionary and is required to be exercised judiciously, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, is required to balance the individual's fundamental right to personal liberty against the legitimate interests of the prosecution in conducting a fair and effective investigation. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, emphasised that the power to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised with due care and circumspection and that no rigid or inflexible formula can be prescribed for its exercise. The Court is required to consider the circumstances of each case rather than proceed on the basis that anticipatory bail can be granted or refused merely because the accusation is serious.

The relevant considerations for deciding the petition for anticipatory bail include, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the applicant, antecedents, the likelihood of fleeing from justice, the possibility of repeating a similar offence, the possibility of the accusation having been made with the object of humiliating or injuring him, and the material available against him. At the same time, the Court must ascertain whether custodial interrogation is genuinely warranted by the facts of the case. The mere assertion by the investigating agency that custodial interrogation is required cannot, by itself, be treated as determinative. The requirement must be assessed in the context of the material collected during investigation, the nature of the alleged role of the applicant, the stage of investigation and the possibility of securing his cooperation without subjecting him to custodial detention.

In the present case, although the petitioner is alleged to have participated in the occurrence, the material placed before this Court does not, at this stage, disclose circumstances demonstrating that his custodial interrogation is indispensable for the purposes of investigation. There is also no material presently placed on record to indicate that the petitioner is likely to abscond, evade the process of law, tamper with the evidence, influence or intimidate the witnesses, or otherwise obstruct the course of investigation. It is also relevant that the petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Further, the grant of anticipatory bail in the present circumstances would not preclude the investigating agency from conducting a fair and effective investigation.

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.