Kurakula Sathwick vs 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 Accused No.2 in Crime No. 110 of 2026 of Marredpally Police Station, Malkajgiri Police Commissionerate, registered for the offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard M/s. Madhuri Bhadriraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the son of the de facto complainant/injured went to Shamirpet Temple on 23.04.2026 along with his friends for his birthday celebrations and returned home at about 7:00 p.m. Later that evening, he informed his father that he was going out to spend time with his friends near Srinivasa Castle, Picket, Secunderabad. At about 1:30 a.m. on 24.04.2026, a friend of the injured informed the wife of the de facto complainant over the phone that the injured had sustained injuries to his back. The de facto complainant and his wife immediately reached the spot and enquired with their son. The injured allegedly stated that, following a sudden heated argument, his friends, including Accused No.1, the petitioner, and another person, manhandled him, and that Accused No.1 stabbed him on his back with a small knife, with an intention to kill him, thereby causing bleeding injuries. The injured further informed them that his mobile phone had been misplaced during the incident. Thereafter, he was shifted to the hospital for treatment and, upon his return, the complaint was lodged. Based on the said complaint, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. It is contended that the name of the petitioner does not find place either in the original complaint or in the FIR, and that no specific overt act or role has been attributed to him in the alleged occurrence. According to the petitioner, the FIR specifically attributes the act of stabbing to Accused No.1, who has already been granted regular bail by the trial Court, subject to certain conditions. The petitioner contends that his subsequent implication as Accused No.2 is an afterthought and is allegedly based on the confessional statement of Accused No.1, without any independent material demonstrating his involvement in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that reliance upon the alleged confession of a co-accused, by itself, cannot warrant the custodial arrest of the petitioner, particularly when no specific overt act has been attributed to him. The petitioner has also relied upon the proceedings in W.P. No.20936 of 2026, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed that the petitioner and his family members should not be called to the Police Station unless their presence was required in connection with the present crime.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a young student, that no specific criminal role has been attributed to him, and that he is willing to cooperate with the investigation. Further, in view of the grant of regular bail to Accused No.1, who is substantially alleged to have committed the stabbing, the petitioner, whose alleged involvement is comparatively lesser and against whom no specific overt act is attributed, is entitled to the benefit of parity. On the said basis, learned counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing the petition, submits that the crime was registered in respect of an occurrence that took place on the intervening night of 23/24.04.2026. The petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No.2, while Accused No.1, who is allegedly involved in the occurrence, has been arrested. It is submitted that the petitioner and the other accused are unavailable and are avoiding the process of investigation. According to the prosecution, the occurrence was preceded by a dispute arising out of an alleged relationship between the injured and the sister of Accused No.1, as the injured was allegedly publicly claiming that she was his girlfriend. It is alleged that, owing to the resulting grudge, Accused No.1 decided to take revenge and that the petitioner/Accused No.2 agreed to support him in carrying out the said plan.

The prosecution specifically attributes an overt act to the petitioner/Accused No.2, alleging that he assaulted the victim and beat him vigorously. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that further evidence remains to be collected. Ten witnesses have been examined and the medical certificate has been collected. Therefore, it is contended that the custodial presence of the petitioner may be necessary for an effective investigation and that, if anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may not cooperate with the investigation. Hence, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

The principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail include consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the possibility of tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses, and the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice. These principles have been enunciated and reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1.

In the instant case, the petitioner’s name does not find place in the original complaint, wherein the act of stabbing is specifically attributed to Accused No.1. However, the prosecution has subsequently attributed a specific overt act to the petitioner/Accused No.2, alleging that he assaulted the victim and beat him vigorously. It is further alleged that the petitioner/Accused No.2 joined Accused No.1 pursuant to the alleged revenge plan and participated in the occurrence. Thus, the prosecution case is not confined merely to the subsequent naming of the petitioner, but attributes active participation to him.

The offence under Section 109(1) of the BNS concerns attempt to murder, while Section 3(5) of the BNS incorporates the principle of common intention. Therefore, merely because the knife injury is specifically attributed to Accused No.1, Accused No.2 cannot, at this stage, be excluded from liability, if there is prima facie material indicating his participation in furtherance of the common intention.

Nevertheless, the discrepancy between the original complaint and the subsequent attribution of a specific role to Accused No.2 is a matter to be assessed on the basis of the investigation material and need not be conclusively determined at this stage. The petitioner also contends that he was implicated on the basis of the alleged confession of Accused No.1. If the petitioner’s implication rests solely upon such confession, the evidentiary limitations under Sections 23 and 24 of the BNS assume significance. The said contention requires consideration, though it cannot be applied mechanically without reference to the other material available on record.

Accused No.1, against whom the act of stabbing is specifically alleged, has already been granted regular bail. Therefore, the individual role attributed to the petitioner and the material available against him must be independently examined. At the same time, the comparatively lesser role attributed to the petitioner/Accused No.2, coupled with the grant of regular bail to Accused No.1, constitutes a relevant circumstance in favour of the petitioner.

In the totality of the circumstances, particularly having regard to the absence of the petitioner’s name in the earliest version, the distinction between the overt act attributed to Accused No.1 and that attributed to the petitioner, the role subsequently ascribed to the petitioner/Accused No.2, the grant of regular bail to Accused No.1, the absence of any demonstrated necessity for custodial interrogation, and the petitioner’s undertaking to cooperate with the investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s liberty can be protected without prejudicing the investigation.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the 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. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.