Pithani Srinivas @ Shree Goud 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 petitioner is arrayed as the accused No.2 in FIR No.1314 of 2026 on the file of Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 109 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr.S.Viplavsimha Reddy, 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 on 27.07.2026, at about 5:30 a.m., the de facto complainant, accompanied by his friend, visited Jasper Pub, Gachibowli, in connection with a business dispute between their group and Shree Goud, the owner of X-Lounge Pub, concerning the operation of Trojen Pub at Lulu Mall, Kukatpally. It is alleged that, during their visit, the accused picked up a quarrel with the de facto complainant and his companion. The accused allegedly abused and criminally intimidated the de facto complainant, and accused No.1 is alleged to have assaulted him with a beer bottle. The other accused allegedly instigated and participated in the assault, stating that the injured was responsible for the financial losses suffered by them and that he should be eliminated. It is further alleged that, in the course of the incident, the de facto complainant sustained a severe bleeding injury to his head. When his friend attempted to intervene and rescue him, the other accused allegedly became involved in the altercation and assaulted him as well. On the basis of the report lodged by the de facto complainant, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. According to the learned counsel, even as per the complaint, the injured and his companion had come to the premises with an ulterior motive. It is further submitted that, from the averments contained in the complaint, the incident appears to have arisen out of a sudden quarrel and that the alleged injuries were caused during the ensuing altercation, without any prior preparation or intention to cause such injuries.

Learned counsel further submits that specific overt acts have been attributed by the de facto complainant only to accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. It is contended that accused Nos.3 and 4 have been implicated primarily as abettors and that, insofar as accused No.4 is concerned, the allegation is that he restrained the victim. According to the learned counsel, even if such allegations are taken at their face value, invocation of Section 109 of the BNS in relation to an offence of attempt to murder is improbable.

Learned counsel argues that, since the incident is alleged to have arisen out of a sudden quarrel, the requisite element of common intention cannot be attributed to the petitioner. It is, however, submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that specific allegations have been made against the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner, acting in concert with the other accused, participated in the attack on the victim and caused severe injuries to him. He further submits that the medical record discloses that the victim sustained a depressed skull fracture and was consequently admitted as an inpatient for treatment. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that the presence of the petitioner may be required for custodial interrogation so as to facilitate an effective and comprehensive investigation. On these grounds, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition.

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

Having considered the rival submissions and material on record, the alleged occurrence took place in the early hours of 27.07.2026 in the context of a business dispute concerning the operation of Trojen Pub at Lulu Mall, Kukatpally. Even according to the prosecution, the incident commenced with a quarrel between the parties. At the stage of anticipatory bail, the seriousness of the injury must be considered along with the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the circumstances of the occurrence, the material against him, the prima facie existence of the requisite intention or knowledge, and the necessity of custodial arrest. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Supreme Court recognised the nature and gravity of the accusation and the specific role attributed to the accused as material considerations.

Section 109 BNS, relating to attempt to murder, requires the requisite intention or knowledge contemplated therein. Abetment is dealt with under Section 45 and the succeeding provisions, while Section 54 concerns an abettor present when the offence is committed. Therefore, where liability for the substantive offence is sought to be fastened on the basis of instigation, intentional aid or abetment, the precise conduct attributed to the accused and the statutory requirements must be examined. Mere attribution of instigation or abetment, without consideration of the surrounding circumstances and individual conduct, cannot by itself conclusively establish the requisite mens rea under Section 109 BNS.

In the present case, the overt act of striking the de facto complainant with a beer bottle is principally attributed to accused No.1. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are alleged to have acted as abettors, accused No.4 to have restrained the victim, and accused No.2 to have instigated or participated in the altercation. No specific overt act causing the serious head injury is attributed to the petitioner. This distinction in the respective roles is relevant while considering pre-arrest protection, particularly in view of the principle in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre that the specific role attributed to an accused is a material consideration.

The allegation that the occurrence arose out of a sudden quarrel is also relevant, though not determinative, in assessing intention or knowledge. The presence or absence of premeditation, the manner in which the incident developed, and the conduct attributed to each accused bear upon the question of mens rea. At this stage, these circumstances are relevant only for making a limited prima facie assessment and not for recording any finding on guilt.

The medical record showing a depressed skull fracture and inpatient treatment undoubtedly establishes the gravity of the injury. However, the gravity of the injury and the culpable intention or knowledge of a particular accused are distinct considerations. The nature of the injury must therefore be assessed along with the manner of occurrence, the surrounding circumstances, and the specific conduct attributed to the petitioner.

The prosecution contends that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation as the investigation is still in progress. While this is a relevant consideration, the necessity for custodial interrogation must be assessed with reference to the facts and actual investigative requirements. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench held that anticipatory bail is a matter of judicial discretion and that appropriate conditions may be imposed having regard to the nature of the offence, the role attributed to the applicant, and the possibility of absconding, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

In the instant case, the petitioner has undertaken to cooperate with the investigation and abide by appropriate conditions. No specific circumstance has been shown indicating that he is likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or otherwise obstruct the investigation. Nor has any specific investigative purpose been demonstrated for which his custodial interrogation is indispensable. The interests of investigation can accordingly be safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.

On a cumulative consideration of the material on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the sudden quarrel arising from the business dispute, the principal attribution of the beer-bottle assault to accused No.1, the absence of any specific allegation that the petitioner caused the serious head injury, the necessity of assessing his alleged role in light of the statutory requirements of abetment and mens rea, his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and the absence of demonstrated necessity for custodial interrogation constitute sufficient grounds for extending protection to the petitioner.

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.