Sunil Kumar Relangi 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 sole Accused in Crime No. 429 of 2026 of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 75(2), 238, 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr. C.Hari Preeth, 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 the de facto complainant lodged a report dated 25.06.2026 alleging that, during the period from August 2025 to September 2025, she had visited Physio 24 Physiotherapy, situated at Mokila, for treatment of shoulder pain. It is alleged that, during the course of such treatment, the petitioner, who runs the said clinic, touched her in an inappropriate manner. When she questioned him about such conduct, he informed her that the touching was part of the treatment. However, subsequently, when the petitioner allegedly hugged and kissed her, she realized that his conduct was not related to her treatment. She therefore resisted his conduct and left the clinic.

It is further alleged that, thereafter, the petitioner apologized to her and requested her to return to the clinic for further treatment, assuring her that he would behave properly. However, stating that she felt aggrieved and deprived of appropriate recourse, the de facto complainant lodged the present complaint seeking investigation and appropriate action. On the basis of the said report, a crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the offences. He specifically contends that the de facto complainant had earlier lodged another report dated 21.12.2025 before the Mokila Police Station, pursuant to which the Investigating Agency, after completion of investigation, filed a charge-sheet.

Learned counsel further submits that, in connection with the said incident, the husband of the de facto complainant allegedly came to the clinic and assaulted the petitioner, pursuant to which the petitioner lodged a separate report, which was registered as Crime No. 68 of 2026, and a charge-sheet has also been filed in that case.

It is the specific contention of learned counsel that, despite the earlier proceedings arising out of the same allegations having already been investigated and charge-sheets having been filed, the de facto complainant subsequently lodged a fresh report before the Jubilee Hills Police Station based on the very same allegations, and the same has been taken on file. He submits that the allegations made by the petitioner in the earlier proceedings have already been considered and that, during the course of investigation, the relevant provisions of law were also added. Nevertheless, the investigation is being continued without properly considering these aspects.

Learned counsel therefore submits that, in view of the apprehension of arrest and other coercive action at the hands of the police, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court seeking protection by way of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, he prays that this Court may exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner and grant anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposes the bail application. He submits that there are specific and direct allegations against the petitioner and that the statement of the victim/de facto complainant contains specific allegations regarding the conduct attributed to the petitioner. He further submits that these aspects are presently under investigation.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for the purpose of conducting an effective and comprehensive investigation. On that basis, he prays that the anticipatory bail application be dismissed.

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

The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is that, during the period from August 2025 to September 2025, he is alleged to have misbehaved with the de facto complainant during the course of her treatment and thereby caused her mental agony. At this stage, this Court is not required to undertake a detailed examination of the merits of the allegations or to record any finding with regard to the ultimate truth or otherwise of the prosecution case. The consideration is confined to the circumstances relevant for determining whether the petitioner has made out a case for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction.

The material placed before this Court discloses that the de facto complainant had earlier lodged a complaint containing allegations arising out of the same set of circumstances before the Mokila Police Station. The said complaint was taken on file, investigated by the competent Investigating Agency and, upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. It is also brought on record that the statement of the de facto complainant now said to have been recorded by the Investigating Agency in the present crime was not part of the earlier crime record.

The subsequent registration of a crime on allegations which, prima facie, overlap with or arise out of the same occurrence requires the Court to examine whether the subsequent proceeding is founded upon a distinct transaction or merely seeks to re-agitate or materially enlarge the allegations forming the subject matter of the earlier case. The Supreme Court, in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, held that there cannot ordinarily be a second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence, subject to recognized exceptions such as a genuine counter case. The principle has subsequently been considered and explained in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348. The underlying consideration is that successive criminal proceedings concerning the same transaction cannot be permitted to be used for materially improving upon or enlarging an earlier version of the occurrence, while at the same time the law recognizes that genuinely distinct transactions or permissible counter-cases stand on a different footing.

In the present case, the fact that an earlier complaint containing substantially the same allegations was investigated by the Mokila Police Station and culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet is a relevant circumstance for consideration of the petitioner's apprehension of arrest in the subsequent crime. Equally relevant is the fact that certain statements now attributed to the de facto complainant in the present crime was not part of the earlier crime record. This discrepancy, particularly when considered along with the prior investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, constitutes a circumstance requiring the petitioner to be protected from unnecessary or coercive custodial action, without expressing any final opinion on the evidentiary value of the said statement or on the legality of the subsequent prosecution.

The jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to safeguard personal liberty in appropriate cases where a person has a reasonable apprehension of arrest. The Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, emphasized that the power to grant anticipatory bail is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, reiterated that anticipatory bail is an important judicial protection of personal liberty and that the Court must balance the individual's right to liberty with the legitimate interests of the investigation and prosecution.

In the present case, this Court has taken note of (i) the registration of an earlier crime on substantially the same allegations; (ii) the completion of investigation in the earlier crime and filing of a charge-sheet; (iii) the apparent discrepancy between the material forming part of the earlier investigation and the statement of the de facto complainant now relied upon in the present crime; and (iv) the petitioner's apprehension of arrest coupled with his expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

Having regard to the cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the ultimate admissibility or evidentiary value of the material collected by the Investigating Agency, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. At the same time, such protection cannot be permitted to impede or frustrate a fair and effective investigation. The petitioner can therefore be directed to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by such conditions as may be imposed to ensure his availability to the Investigating Agency and to safeguard the interests of the prosecution.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused 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.