Srivalli & Anr. vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

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 petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.283 of 2026 on the file of the Chilkalguda Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

Heard Mr.Abdul Azam Khan, learned Counsel representing Mr.Mohammed Mudabbir Ali Khan, 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 the de facto complainant, who was working as a security guard at the hospital, lodged a report stating that, on 06.06.2026 at about 4:30 PM, while he was attending to his duties, he witnessed one person travelling on a scooty along with three children and a woman. Then one person ran behind the two-wheeler and pushed it, as a result of which the rider and pillion riders fell to the ground. Thereafter, the said person took out a knife and indiscriminately stabbed the rider. When the hospital staff and traffic personnel attempted to apprehend him, he fled from the spot. Upon enquiry, it was revealed that the assailant was Accused No.1. Based on the said report, a crime was registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are false, baseless, and devoid of merit, and that the petitioners have no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case by the police and that neither of them was present at the scene of the alleged offence nor did either petitioner commit any positive act in furtherance of the same. It is submitted that Accused No.1 has already been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations against the petitioners do not, even prima facie, establish their involvement in the alleged offence or disclose any material attracting the alleged criminal liability against them. The petitioners are, however, willing to cooperate with the investigation and undertake to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the investigation has disclosed the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the injured had married another person after obtaining a divorce from a relative of Accused No.1, and that, in connection with the said circumstance, the petitioners had an altercation with the injured. It is further submitted that, on such occasion, Accused No.1 developed a grudge against the injured and, at the instigation of the petitioners, attacked the injured with a knife, thereby causing multiple stab injuries. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that the presence of the petitioners may be required for the purpose of conducting and completing the investigation. On these grounds, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

The specific allegation against the petitioners is that they instigated Accused No.1 to do away with the life of the victim, pursuant to which Accused No.1 assaulted her with a knife and attempted to kill her. The allegations are undoubtedly serious. However, while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail, the Court must consider not only the gravity of the accusation but also the specific role attributed to each accused, the material collected during investigation, the possibility of absconding or tampering with evidence, and the necessity for custodial interrogation.

In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, the Constitution Bench held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is discretionary and must be exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the possibility of fleeing from justice, and the requirements of a proper investigation. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that such discretion must balance the individual's right to personal liberty with the legitimate requirements of a fair and effective investigation. The relevant factors are illustrative and not exhaustive.

In the present case, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations, the material presently available does not disclose any direct accusation or specific overt act by the petitioners in the actual assault. The knife attack is attributed to Accused No.1, while the allegation against the petitioners is one of instigation, based substantially upon the statement of Accused No.1. Although instigation, if supported by legally admissible material and surrounding circumstances, may constitute serious involvement, the material presently on record does not disclose such a degree of involvement as to necessitate the petitioners' custodial intorrogation.

The petitioners claim to be permanent residents and have expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation. There is no material indicating that they are likely to abscond, evade the process of law, influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, or otherwise obstruct the investigation. Nor does the material presently available establish any compelling necessity for their custodial interrogation. The mere pendency of investigation, by itself, is not sufficient to deny anticipatory bail where the accused undertake to remain available to the Investigating Officer and comply with the conditions imposed by the Court.

Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioners, the material presently available, the absence of any specific overt act in the actual assault, their status as permanent residents, their willingness to cooperate, and the absence of material indicating a likelihood of absconding or a compelling need for custodial interrogation, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.

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

The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Chilkalguda Police Station, Hyderabad on or before 05.09.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release them on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer.

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

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

The petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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.