Mohammed Abdullah & Anr. vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.2 and 3 in FIR No.576 of 2025 on the file of Allapur police station for the offences punishable under Section 109 r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr. H. Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the de facto complainant, after obtaining a divorce from her first husband, remarried accused No.1 on 08.03.2024 and has since been residing with him along with her two children. It is alleged that on 15.10.2025, at about 12:15 p.m., after accused No.1 had left for work, an unknown person entered her house, attempted to strangulate her from behind, threatened her to leave her husband, pushed her onto a cot, and thereafter fled from the scene after she lost consciousness. She was admitted to the hospital, where she underwent treatment for serious internal injuries, including blood clotting affecting her brain, eyes, face, and heart. It is further alleged that while she was undergoing treatment, her statement was recorded wherein she expressed her suspicion over her former husband. Subsequently, the de facto complainant submitted a written complaint stating that, owing to the trauma suffered by her, she was unable to disclose all the relevant facts in her earlier statement alleging that her husband had orchestrated the attack in conspiracy with his first wife (accused No.3) and accused No.2. Based on the said complaint, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for petitioner Nos.2 and 3 contends that they have been falsely implicated solely on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of accused No.1, which is inadmissible in evidence and is not supported by any independent corroborative material. It is submitted that neither the initial complaint nor the earliest version of the prosecution case named the petitioners. On the contrary, the complainant had stated that the assailant was an unknown masked person and had merely expressed suspicion against her former husband. Their implication arose only during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the complaint and in the registration of the FIR. Learned counsel further contends that the ingredients of Section 109 of the BNS are not attracted, as no direct or proximate overt act has been attributed to the petitioners. Likewise, Section 3(5) of the BNS is also inapplicable in the absence of any material demonstrating common intention or active participation on the part of the petitioners.

Learned counsel further submits that no recovery is required to be effected from the petitioners and, therefore, their custodial interrogation is wholly unnecessary. It is further submitted that accused No.1 has already been granted regular bail and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to seek parity. The petitioners are permanent residents, have no criminal antecedents, and undertake to cooperate with the investigation. There is no likelihood of their absconding, influencing the witnesses, or tampering with the evidence. Hence, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be granted.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that the petitioners are involved in a grave offence and that the investigation is at a crucial stage. It is submitted that accused Nos.1 and 3 conspired to eliminate the complainant owing to matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and the complainant. It is further alleged that, in furtherance of their common intention, accused Nos.1 and 2 entered the complainant's house, assaulted her, and attempted to strangulate her, while accused No.3 allegedly kept watch outside the house. It is further submitted that, after his arrest, accused No.1 made a confessional statement implicating the present petitioners. The investigation has also revealed material indicating the presence of accused No.1 near the scene of the offence. The statements of eleven witnesses have been recorded, and the medical certificate has been collected. Since further evidence is yet to be gathered, it is contended that the grant of anticipatory bail would enable the petitioners to influence the witnesses, tamper with the evidence, and impede the course of investigation. Hence, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.

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

Admittedly, the FIR initially referred only to an unknown masked assailant, with the complainant expressing suspicion against her former husband. The present petitioners were not named in the complaint and came to be implicated only during the course of investigation, primarily on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of accused No.1. In Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the confession of a co-accused can only lend assurance to other evidence on record and is not substantive evidence against another accused.

In the present case, except for the alleged confessional statement of accused No.1, no independent material or specific overt act has been placed on record connecting the petitioners with the commission of the alleged offence. The prosecution has also not demonstrated that any recovery is to be effected from the petitioners or that their custodial interrogation is indispensable for the purpose of investigation. Mere apprehension that the petitioners may influence witnesses or tamper with the evidence, in the absence of supporting material, is insufficient to deny the relief of anticipatory bail.

In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provision relating to anticipatory bail is intended to safeguard personal liberty and that the discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS must be exercised judiciously. It is equally well settled that anticipatory bail should not be refused merely because the allegations are serious, unless the prosecution is able to demonstrate that custodial interrogation is necessary.

It is not in dispute that the petitioners are permanent residents, have no criminal antecedents, and have expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation. There is no material placed before this Court to indicate that they are likely to abscond, influence witnesses, or tamper with the evidence. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the stage of the investigation, the absence of any independent incriminating material against the petitioners, and the settled principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that their custodial interrogation is not necessary.

In the aforesaid circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the prayer for anticipatory bail deserves to be allowed, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure their availability for investigation and to safeguard the interests of the prosecution.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, 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.