Yelmule Ramchandra @ Ramchander vs State of Telangana and another

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of regular bail.

The petitioner is sole Accused in Crime No. 166 of 2026 of Kowtala Police Station, Kumrambheem (Asifabad), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 324(4), 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”), Sections 3(1)(r), (s), (g), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act-2015), (for short “the SC & ST Act”).

Heard Mr. Hussain Aamir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant allegedly purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.5-00 guntas from the petitioner in the year 1997. According to the de facto complainant, despite payment of the entire sale consideration, the petitioner did not execute a sale deed in his favour. Nevertheless, the de facto complainant claims to have remained in continuous possession of the subject land, while the petitioner left for Maharashtra. It is further alleged that, after about fifteen years, the petitioner returned and caused the patta in respect of the subject land to be registered in the name of his son. In this backdrop, on 08.07.2026, during the night hours, the petitioner allegedly entered the land in the possession of the de facto complainant with a tractor, damaged the standing crop, and thereby caused a loss of approximately Rs.30,000/-. Thereafter, on 10.07.2026 at about 10:00 a.m., while the family members of the de facto complainant were working in the agricultural land, the petitioner allegedly trespassed into the land once again, picked up a quarrel with them, and abused them in filthy language. It is further alleged that the petitioner intentionally outraged the modesty of his family member. Based on the representation submitted in that regard, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and that, as there is pending civil litigation concerning the subject property, a false case has been foisted against him. It is further submitted that, although the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, he was not served with a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, on the ground that another criminal case is pending against him. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 35 days and that the entire investigation has been completed. Therefore, his continued detention is not necessary for any further purpose of the prosecution. It is also submitted that the petitioner himself lodged a counter-case in respect of an alleged attack upon him by the de facto complainant and his family members, which was registered as FIR No.169 of 2026. Having regard to these circumstances, learned counsel prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition and submitted that 12 witnesses were examined and the investigation is still underway. It is contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of damaging the standing crop and of outraging the modesty of a woman. He further pointed out that an earlier criminal case had also been registered against the petitioner and that the proceedings in the said case are pending before the competent criminal Court. In view of the nature of the allegations, the pendency of the investigation, and the petitioner’s involvement in the earlier criminal case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.

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

The gravamen of the prosecution case is that, on 08.07.2026, the petitioner allegedly trespassed into the land in the possession of the de facto complainant, ploughed the standing crop with a tractor, and caused damage thereto. It is further alleged that, on 10.07.2026, the petitioner again entered the said land and outraged the modesty of one of the family members of the de facto complainant.

At this stage, the Court is required to balance the seriousness of the allegations with the necessity for the petitioner’s continued detention. The settled principle governing grant of bail is that pre-trial detention is primarily intended to secure the presence of the accused during the proceedings and to ensure a fair and unhindered investigation or trial; it is not to be employed as a form of punishment before conviction. Where the investigation has substantially progressed and the material witnesses have already been examined, the possibility of the accused influencing such witnesses or interfering with the collection of evidence is correspondingly reduced, subject, of course, to the facts and circumstances of each case.

In the present case, having regard to the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, the fact that twelve (12) material witnesses have been examined, and the stage reached in the proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that the further incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted for the purposes of investigation in the case. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of regular bail, subject to such conditions as may be imposed.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:

Any pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.