Jeedimadla Rajender 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.11 in FIR No.213 of 2025 on the file of Narayanapur Police Station, Yadadri-Bhongir District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 111(2) (ii), 111(3) (4), 112(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and Section 9(1) of Telangana Gaming Act.

Heard Mr.T.Praveen Sagar, 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 receiving credible information regarding persons gambling by playing three cards in an organized manner, the complainant, along with his staff and mediators, proceeded to the premises situated at Venkambhavi Thanda Village, Narayanapur Mandal. Upon reaching the said place, they found certain persons engaged in the alleged gambling activity and managed to apprehend certain persons, arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 8. The complainant and his team also seized playing cards and other material objects from the premises. During the course of the proceedings, the name of the petitioner and other persons allegedly came to light through the confessional statements of the apprehended accused, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had also participated in the gambling activity but had left the place before the raid. Based on the report submitted by the complainant, the present crime came to be 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 alleged offence. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s name was not mentioned as an accused in the original report and that he has subsequently been implicated solely on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of a co-accused. Learned counsel further submits that no incriminating material has been seized from the petitioner and that there is no other material on record indicating his involvement in the alleged offence. It is also submitted that Accused No.10, who is similarly situated and stands on the same footing as the petitioner, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition, contending that specific allegations have been made against the petitioner and that the investigation is still in progress. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that the petitioner’s co-accused, namely Accused No.10, who is stated to be similarly situated, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

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

The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he participated in the alleged gambling activity. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was not found at the spot by the complainant and that his presence was not noticed at the time of the raid. His name was subsequently implicated on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of a co-accused.

It is well settled that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to strike a balance between the individual’s right to personal liberty and the legitimate requirements of a fair and effective investigation. The relevant considerations, inter alia, include the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, the antecedents of the accused, and the necessity, if any, for custodial interrogation.

Further, though the principle of parity is not an absolute or inflexible rule for grant of bail, the fact that a co-accused who is similarly situated and stands on the same footing as the petitioner, namely Accused No.10, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court is a relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration.

Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the circumstances in which his name came to be implicated, and the order granting anticipatory bail to the similarly situated co-accused, this Court is of the considered view that extending similar relief to the petitioner/Accused No.11 would be appropriate. However, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure the petitioner’s availability for the purpose of investigation and to safeguard the interests of the 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.