Deepak Singh @ T. Deepak Singh 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 petitioner is arrayed as Accused No. 3 in Crime No. 120 of 2026 of Kulsumpura Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 324(4), 329(4) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr. Suresh Singh, 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 on 11.04.2026, at about 9:30 PM, the de facto complainant’s uncle and aunt came to his house in an auto-rickshaw. At that time, two persons allegedly approached them and picked up an altercation with the auto-rickshaw driver and assaulted him with their hands, resulting in bleeding injuries. When the de facto complainant and his family members attempted to intervene, the petitioner, along with the other accused, allegedly pelted stones at the de facto complainant’s house, as a result of which the de facto complainant sustained bleeding injuries. It is further alleged that the accused attacked the de facto complainant and his family members and attempted to cause their death. They also allegedly damaged the lights fixed to the compound wall. Upon the arrival of the Police, the accused allegedly fled from the spot. Based on the report lodged by the de facto complainant, a crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the locality and is eking out his livelihood through private employment. Learned counsel further submits that Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 9, who were arrested in connection with the crime, were produced before the learned Magistrate, who, having considered the offences alleged against them, granted bail and released them. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, furnish adequate sureties, and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the investigation has revealed that the accused, including the petitioner, intentionally trespassed into the residence of the de facto complainant and pelted stones at the house. It is further submitted that, during the course of the incident, Accused Nos.1 to 3 climbed over the gate of the de facto complainant’s residence and attempted to break open the door. It is alleged that, as a result of the stone pelting by the accused, the de facto complainant sustained an injury to his nose. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that, although the other accused who were arrested have subsequently been released on bail, the alleged offences have since been altered and Section 109 has also been invoked. It is therefore contended that the custodial presence of the petitioner may be required for the purpose of conducting an effective investigation. Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

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

The allegations against the petitioner are that he participated in the incident by pelting stones at the house of the de facto complainant, scaling the compound wall and breaking the light fixed thereto, resulting in an injury to the nose of the de facto complainant. Thus, his participation in the occurrence is alleged, though the nature and extent of his individual role are to be considered in the light of the prosecution case and the material collected during investigation.

While considering anticipatory bail, the Court is required to balance the petitioner’s personal liberty with the interests of the prosecution, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the accused, the possibility of absconding, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the necessity of custodial interrogation. The Constitution Bench decisions in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, recognize that anticipatory bail is to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case, balancing individual liberty with the requirements of a fair investigation. The considerations regarding the nature of the accusation, the role of the accused, the possibility of fleeing from justice and the interests of society were also emphasized in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694.

In the present case, though the petitioner is alleged to have participated in the group attack on the de facto complainant’s house, there is no specific material indicating that his custodial interrogation is indispensable for the investigation. The petitioner can be directed to cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation as and when required, in terms of Section 482(2)(i) BNSS.

Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner and as substantial part of the investigation has already been completed by examining 12 witnesses and in the absence of any material showing that his custody is necessary for recovery, discovery, confrontation with witnesses or any other specific investigative purpose, the mere pendency of investigation cannot, by itself, justify denial of anticipatory bail. In this position, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure his cooperation with the investigation and to safeguard the interests of prosecution.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the 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. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.