Dhegavath Surender & Ors. vs The 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 petitioners are arrayed as the accused Nos.1 to 6 in FIR No.119 of 2026 on the file of Indalwai Police Station, Nizamabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 12(2), 109, 115(2), read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr.M.Santhosh, 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 07.07.2026, after completing her duties at the police station, the de facto complainant boarded an RTC bus to return to her residence. It is alleged that her husband followed her, forcibly attempted to pull her out of the bus, abused her in filthy language, pushed her, and tore her clothes. It is further alleged that, upon the de facto complainant informing her brother over the phone about the incident, he came to her rescue. Thereafter, her brother was allegedly taken to the village of the de facto complainant's husband, where he was tied up and assaulted with sticks and stones. Subsequently, the de facto complainant and her father visited the police station and, accompanied by the police, proceeded to the village of her husband. It is alleged that, upon their arrival, the accused, along with other villagers, sprinkled chilli powder on them and attacked them with bricks, stones, sticks, and a knife, causing severe injuries to the de facto complainant and her father. It is further alleged that the accused attacked them with knives and assaulted all of them with the intention of causing the death of the de facto complainant and her family members. Based on these allegations, the present crime was registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that all the accused have been falsely implicated owing to the existing matrimonial discord between the de facto complainant and her husband. He further submitted that the present crime has been registered only as a counterblast to the proceedings initiated against the accused. It was also contended that the prosecution version suffers from inherent improbabilities and that the de facto complainant, by misusing her official position, got the crime registered solely to harass the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegations are vague and devoid of material particulars. He also pointed out that petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 6 are physically challenged, rendering their participation in the occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution, inherently improbable. It was further submitted that the petitioners are permanent residents having a fixed place of abode, are not likely to abscond, and are willing to cooperate with the investigation and by complying with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioners be granted anticipatory bail.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application, contending that there are specific allegations against the petitioners regarding their active involvement in the commission of the offence and in causing injuries to the victims. It was further submitted that specific overt acts attributable to each of the petitioners have been clearly referred to in the complaint. It was also submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that the medical records reflect that all the victims sustained injuries, though the Medical Officer has opined that the injuries are simple in nature. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be necessary for an effective investigation. It was, therefore, argued that the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage is likely to adversely affect the ongoing investigation, and accordingly, the application deserves to be dismissed.

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

The gravamen of the prosecution case is that the petitioners, acting in concert with the other accused, allegedly attacked the de facto complainant and her family members with the intention of causing their death and inflicted grievous and other bodily injuries upon them. The prosecution further alleges that the assault was carried out with deadly weapons, including knives, bricks, stones, and sticks, thereby attracting the offences alleged in the First Information Report.

A careful consideration of the allegations contained in the complaint, the statements collected during the course of investigation, and the medical records placed before this Court prima facie indicates that an incident, as alleged by the prosecution, had occurred. The medical evidence also corroborates that the victims sustained injuries in the occurrence, although the Medical Officer has presently opined that the injuries are simple in nature. At this stage, however, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or record findings on the truthfulness of the allegations. Whether the petitioners had the requisite mens rea or common intention to commit the alleged offences, including the offence punishable under Section 109 of the BNS, is a matter to be established during the course of a full-fledged investigation and, if necessary, at trial. At the stage of consideration of an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, seeking anticipatory bail, a detailed evaluation of the evidence or recording of findings on disputed questions of fact would be wholly inappropriate.

It is well settled that while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to strike a delicate balance between safeguarding the individual's fundamental right to personal liberty and ensuring a fair, free, and effective investigation. The parameters governing the exercise of jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail include, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the exact role attributed to the accused, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, the likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and whether custodial interrogation is genuinely necessary for the purposes of investigation. These principles have been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, wherein it was held that arrest should not be resorted to merely because it is lawful to do so and that the discretion to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised in a manner that advances the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. Likewise, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that arrest is not to be made in a routine or mechanical manner and that the investigating agency must justify the necessity for custodial detention.

In the present case, although the material collected during the investigation prima facie discloses the occurrence and attributes specific overt acts to the petitioners, the injuries sustained by the victims have, at this stage, been certified to be simple in nature. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners are likely to abscond or evade the process of law. On the contrary, the petitioners are stated to be permanent residents having a fixed place of abode and have unequivocally expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer as and when required. Except for a general assertion regarding the necessity of custodial interrogation, no specific material has been placed before this Court demonstrating that such custodial interrogation is indispensable or that the investigation cannot effectively proceed if the petitioners are protected by an order of anticipatory bail. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail.

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.