Kondapalukula Ajay Rao vs The State Of Telangana

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail.

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.308 of 2026 on the file of the Jagtial Rural Police Station, Jagitial District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 118(1), 308(2) and 108 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

Heard Mr.K.Giridhar Raju, 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 the wife of the deceased lodged a police report dated 09.08.2026, stating that her husband (the deceased) was working as a tractor driver and that Accused No.1 had engaged his services. It is alleged that Accused No.1 failed to pay the salary due to the deceased and did not respond despite repeated requests for payment. In this regard, the deceased sent a voice recording to Accused No.1 concerning the money due to him.

Against this backdrop, it is alleged that, on 09.08.2026 at about 06:00 AM, Accused No.1, along with the petitioner/Accused No.2, trespassed into the house of the deceased. Accused No.1 is alleged to have abused the deceased in filthy language and threatened him. On hearing the screams, the family members went inside and allegedly found Accused No.1 assaulting the deceased, while the petitioner/Accused No.2 was holding him down. Thereafter, the deceased lost consciousness and was taken to the hospital for treatment.

It is further alleged that, as a consequence of the said incident and the words uttered by Accused No.1, the deceased suffered deep mental distress and subsequently committed suicide by hanging. On the basis of the said report, a crime came to be registered against the accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has no involvement in the alleged offence. It is contended that, even from the material collected by the prosecution, there is nothing to establish any active involvement, intentional conduct, or act of abetment on the part of the petitioner in relation to the deceased's suicide. Learned counsel further submits that, except for the offence under Section 108 of the BNS, the other offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.

It is further submitted 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. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident and has a fixed place of residence, and therefore there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the process of investigation. Learned counsel points out that Accused No.1 has already been arrested and subsequently released on bail. It is therefore contended that, in the absence of any specific circumstance demonstrating the necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioner, his custodial detention is unwarranted. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition and submitted that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the alleged offence along with Accused No.1. It is contended that the presence and participation of the petitioner during the occurrence have been spoken to by the witnesses and that the prosecution material discloses his involvement in the incident.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the investigation is presently at a crucial stage and that the presence of the petitioner may be necessary for the purpose of custodial interrogation and for conducting an effective and comprehensive investigation into the allegations. It is therefore contended that granting anticipatory bail at this stage may impede or otherwise prejudice the ongoing investigation. On these grounds, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition.

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

It is well settled that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or a detailed appreciation of the rival versions. The Court is primarily required to consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the material collected during investigation, the necessity for custodial interrogation, and the likelihood of misuse of the liberty sought.

In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Supreme Court held that no inflexible formula governs the grant of anticipatory bail and identified, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, his antecedents, the possibility of fleeing from justice or repeating the offence, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the effect of bail on a free and fair investigation as relevant considerations. The Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, reiterated that anticipatory bail is not confined to exceptional cases and that appropriate conditions may be imposed having regard to the facts of each case.

In the present case, the petitioner is alleged to have accompanied Accused No.1 to the house of the deceased and participated in the occurrence by assisting Accused No.1 while he allegedly assaulted the deceased. Thus, the allegation against the petitioner concerns not merely his presence at the scene with specific role that he held the decease, while accused No.1 assaulted him.

Having regard to the allegations in the police report and the material collected during investigation, and considering the petitioner's undertaking to cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation, there is no material presently indicating that he is likely to abscond, evade the process of law and as no specific circumstance has also been brought to the notice of this Court demonstrating that his custodial interrogation is indispensable for an effective investigation, this court is of the considered view that, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the ultimate culpability, the petitioner’s prayer for grant of anticipatory bail deserves positive consideration. The interests of the prosecution can adequately be safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions.

The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Jagitial Police Station, Jagtial District, on or before 15.09.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release his on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer.

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of his release on bail or until the filing of the final result, whichever is earlier.

The petitioner shall remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation.

The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation.

The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings before the court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

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.