Pabba Jagadeeshwar Goud & 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 the accused Nos.1 to 5 in FIR No.130 of 2026 on the file of Kollapur Police Station, Nagarkurnool District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 329(3), 324(4), 352 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr.Mogili Anaveni, 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, against the backdrop of existing land disputes, the de facto complainant erected a cement fence around the disputed land on 21.07.2026. It is alleged that, during the incident, the accused criminally trespassed into the land and damaged the fence. When the de facto complainant questioned their conduct, the accused allegedly abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with an axe and a sickle, with an attempt to cause his death. When the father and elder brother of the de facto complainant intervened to rescue him, they were also allegedly assaulted, resulting in injuries to all three victims. On the basis of the representation submitted by the de facto complainant, a crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are existing civil disputes between the de facto complainant and the petitioners and that, in the said backdrop, an ad-interim injunction order was also granted in favour of the petitioners in O.S. No. 103 of 2026. It is contended that, taking advantage of the pending civil proceedings, the de facto complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners in the present criminal case with a view to causing prejudice to and delaying the civil proceedings.

Learned counsel further submits that, without properly considering the material available on record, the police conducted a preliminary enquiry and thereafter registered the crime. It is also contended that, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value, the victims have sustained only simple injuries and that there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to cause the death of any of the victims. According to the learned counsel, the nature of the injuries sustained by the victims itself indicates the absence of any such intention.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are 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 petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition and submitted that the de facto complainant and the other victims sustained injuries, which are reflected in the medical evidence. It is further submitted that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are involved in another case, namely Crime No. 93 of 2022 of Kollapur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and that the medical record corroborates the occurrence and the injuries sustained by the victims, as alleged by the de facto complainant. It is also contended that the investigation is presently at a nascent stage and that, so far, only LWs. 1 to 3 have been examined. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be necessary for the purpose of a proper and effective investigation. On these grounds, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the bail petition.

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

The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioners is that, when the de facto complainant’s father and elder brother intervened to rescue the de facto complainant, the petitioners allegedly assaulted them with an axe and a sickle and caused injuries to them, with the alleged intention of causing their death. Thus, the allegations are undoubtedly serious in nature and involve the alleged use of dangerous weapons. At the same time, while considering the prayer for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to assess the allegations in their proper factual and evidentiary context and without making any detailed or conclusive determination on the merits of the prosecution case.

It is well settled that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to take into consideration, inter alia, 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 repetition of the offence, the possibility of the accusation having been made with an ulterior motive, the possibility of tampering with witnesses or otherwise obstructing a fair investigation, and the overall impact of granting protection from arrest upon the investigation. The Court must also carefully evaluate the material available against the accused and strike a proper balance between ensuring a free, fair and effective investigation and protecting the accused from unnecessary or unjustified detention. These principles were authoritatively reiterated by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694; and the Constitution Bench decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1.

In the present case, the Court is conscious that the nature of the injuries cannot, by itself, conclusively determine the intention of the assailants or negate the allegations made in the complaint. The question whether the petitioners possessed the requisite intention or knowledge for the alleged offences is ultimately a matter for determination on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation and, if necessary, at trial. At the present stage, however, the medical evidence indicating simple injuries is a relevant circumstance for assessing the immediate necessity of custodial arrest, particularly when considered together with the other circumstances appearing from the record. It is also significant that the petitioners have expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by such conditions as may be imposed by this Court. There is nothing placed before the Court, at this stage, to indicate that the petitioners are likely to abscond or evade the process of law, or that they are likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses if appropriate conditions are imposed.

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.