K.Veeresham & Ors. 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 petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 4 in FIR No.119 of 2026 on the file of Peddemul Police Station, Vikarabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 118(1) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.T.S.Anirudh Reddy, 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 the mother of petitioner No.1/victim lodged a police report on 27.06.2026, alleging that her son was employed as a driver under accused No.1 and the petitioner No.1/accused No.2 developed suspicion that the victim had become close to his wife and, in that backdrop, took the victim to a guest room at Tandur on 24.06.2026, where he allegedly assaulted him and threatened him with dire consequences if he disclosed the incident to anyone. It is further alleged that, on 26.06.2026, at about 9:30 a.m., the victim informed his mother/the de facto complainant that he was proceeding to meet his friends. At that time, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 allegedly came in a car, assaulted him with sticks, forcibly took him in the car belonging to accused No.1 to an unknown place, and thereafter wrongfully confined and assaulted him. Alleging the commission of the aforesaid acts, the complainant requested the police to take appropriate legal action. Based on the said report, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present crime. He submits that, initially, the First Information Report(FIR) was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137 and 118(1) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, and even accused No.1 was served with a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. Subsequently, however, the penal provisions were altered to Sections 140(4), 137(2), 118(1), and 3(5) of the BNS.

He further contends that, except for the offence under Section 140(4) of the BNS, the remaining offences are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. According to him, even the allegations contained in the complaint do not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. It is further submitted that, according to the prosecution itself, there were two distinct incidents, one on 24.06.2026 and another on 26.06.2026. However, in the statement of the victim recorded during the course of investigation, there is no reference whatsoever to the alleged incident dated 24.06.2026.

It is further pleaded that, even according to the prosecution material, the victim was allegedly taken by the petitioners, assaulted with sticks, and thereafter brought back and left near the office of the Circle Inspector of Police. According to him, these facts neither indicate any intention to kidnap the victim nor any intention to cause his death. He further contends that the weapons allegedly used were only sticks, which, according to the prosecution itself, cannot be treated as dangerous weapons likely to cause death. It is also submitted that accused No.1, who had been taken into judicial custody, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 24.07.2026. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, have permanent places of residence, and undertake to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that there are specific and cogent allegations against the petitioners. He submits that, upon consideration of the material collected during the course of investigation, the penal provisions were altered so as to incorporate Section 140(4) of the BNS and, having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim, the offence under Section 118(2) of the BNS was also attracted. He further contends that the petitioners acted in concert with one another, kidnapped the victim, took him to an unknown place, and assaulted him with sticks, thereby causing grievous injuries. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be necessary for conducting a comprehensive investigation. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

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

The specific allegations against the petitioners are that petitioner No.1, on 24.06.2026, allegedly took the victim to a guest house at Tandur, assaulted him, and threatened him with dire consequences if he disclosed the incident to anyone. It is further alleged that, on 26.06.2026, the petitioners, acting in concert with the other accused, forcibly took the victim in a car, assaulted him with sticks, and thereafter left him near the police station. The prosecution alleges that these acts resulted in the victim sustaining injuries, thereby attracting the offences alleged against the petitioners.

It is well settled that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate upon the correctness of the rival versions. At this stage, the Court is required only to form a prima facie opinion as to whether the custodial arrest of the accused is necessary for the purposes of investigation. The appreciation of evidence, determination of disputed questions of fact, and adjudication upon the credibility of witnesses are matters that fall within the domain of the trial Court after the evidence is adduced.

In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court exhaustively enumerated the factors relevant for consideration of an application for anticipatory bail, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific 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, the necessity for custodial interrogation, and the larger interests of justice. It is equally well settled that arrest should not be resorted to in a routine or mechanical manner merely because the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. Unless the investigating agency demonstrates that custodial interrogation is indispensable for an effective investigation, the liberty of an accused should not be curtailed unnecessarily. In this regard, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, continue to guide the exercise of judicial discretion while considering the necessity of arrest.

Having regard to the nature of the allegations that the petitioners, the medical material placed by the prosecution indicating that the victim sustained injuries, the fact that the petitioners are permanent residents, have expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and there being no material placed before this Court to indicate that they are likely to abscond, evade the process of law, influence witnesses, or tamper with the prosecution evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not, at this stage, demonstrated any compelling necessity for the custodial interrogation of the petitioners. Accordingly, balancing the fundamental right of the petitioners to personal liberty with the interests of a fair and effective investigation, this Court is satisfied 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.