Dulgach Rohan @ Bittu 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 the accused No.3 in FIR No.215 of 2026 on the file of Mancherial Town Police Station, Ramagundam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr.TPS Harsh, learned counsel representing Mr.M.Pranav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mahmood, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.04.2026, the de facto complainant’s son/injured, was present at Indhu Bar, Mancherial, along with his friends. It is alleged that Accused No.1 left the said place and, thereafter, returned along with certain other persons. The said persons allegedly caught hold of the injured, pushed him against the shutters of the bar and assaulted him on his head with empty beer bottles and sticks, allegedly with an intention to cause his death. When the friend of injured intervened and attempted to rescue him, he was also allegedly assaulted on his head with beer bottles and sticks. Consequently, both are stated to have sustained bleeding injuries.

So far as the present petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.3, is concerned, the specific allegation of the prosecution is that he was one among the persons who accompanied Accused No.1 when the latter returned to Indhu Bar and that he participated in the alleged assault upon the injured persons. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner has been implicated in the present crime.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is contended that the petitioner’s name was introduced only at the instance of certain persons who had allegedly influenced the de facto complainant and that the petitioner had no role whatsoever in the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel further submits that no specific overt act is attributed to the petitioner, much less any act indicating an intention on his part to cause injuries to, or cause the death of, the injured persons. It is further submitted that the investigation has already been completed and that Accused Nos.1 and 2 have been enlarged on bail by the trial Court. Learned counsel contends that, having regard to the completion of the investigation, the absence of any specific allegation or overt act against the petitioner, and the petitioner’s expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigating agency and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, no useful purpose would be served by subjecting him to custodial interrogation. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner may be granted the relief of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the petition. It is submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and that the son of the de facto complainant sustained grievous injuries in the course of the alleged occurrence, as evidenced by the medical report. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the involvement of the petitioner has emerged from the material collected during the course of investigation and, therefore, the contention that he has been falsely implicated cannot be accepted at this stage. It is further contended that the investigation is not yet complete and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for the purpose of effectively investigating the incident and ascertaining the relevant facts and circumstances connected therewith. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may impede the investigation. On the aforesaid grounds, seeks dismissal of the present petition.

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

The principal allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with the other accused, assaulted the victim with an intention to cause his death and, in the course of such assault, caused injuries to him. However, the material placed before this Court indicates that the alleged involvement of the petitioner came to the knowledge of the de facto complainant on the basis of information received from others. Likewise, the prosecution appears to place reliance upon the statements of certain witnesses whose knowledge regarding the petitioner’s alleged involvement is also stated to be derivative in nature. At this stage, the material on record does not disclose any direct evidence specifying the particular overt acts allegedly committed by the petitioner in the course of the occurrence.

It is well settled that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, the Court is required to strike a balance between the individual’s right to personal liberty and the legitimate interests of a fair and effective investigation. The nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the necessity, if any, for custodial interrogation, and the likelihood of the accused absconding, influencing witnesses, or tampering with the evidence are among the relevant factors to be taken into consideration. At the same time, the mere seriousness or gravity of the allegations, by itself, cannot be treated as sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail, particularly where the prosecution is unable to demonstrate a genuine and compelling necessity for the custodial interrogation of the accused. (See Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694; Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1).

In the present case, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and the material placed on record, this Court does not find any material, at this stage, to indicate that the petitioner is likely to abscond, influence the witnesses, or tamper with the evidence. The prosecution has also not placed any material demonstrating a compelling necessity for subjecting the petitioner to custodial interrogation at this stage of the proceedings. The petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by such conditions as may be imposed by this Court.

In the aforesaid circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the evidentiary value of the material collected during the investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. The interests of the investigation can adequately be safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions requiring the petitioner to remain available before the Investigating Officer, to cooperate with the investigation.

For the aforesaid reasons, this 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.