CRLP/14765/2026 of Varthya Kishan Vs The State of Telangana on 18 September 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.476 of 2026 on the file of the Kollur Police Station, Cyberabad District, facing accusations under Sections 109, 118(1) and 351(2) of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

3. Heard Mr.V.Raghunth, learned Senior counsel representing Mr.B.Balraju, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 05.09.2026, against the backdrop of an altercation, petitioner No.1 abused and threatened the de facto complainant, who is his mother, as well as the victim, who is his brother. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 attacked the victim with a meat- cutting knife. When the de facto complainant moved aside in an attempt to escape, the knife struck the victim on his head, causing severe injuries and rendering him unconscious. The injured was thereafter shifted to the hospital for treatment. Subsequently, upon submission of the report, the crime came to be registered.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the incident occurred among family members and that there was no intention whatsoever on the part of the petitioners to cause the death of any person. It is, therefore, contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioners by the prosecution are misconceived. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. It is further submitted that none of the factors comprising the triple test are attracted in the present case. On these grounds, learned Senior Counsel prays that the petitioners be granted anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are clear and specific. It is submitted that petitioner No.1, during the course of the occurrence, used the knife ordinarily used for cutting meat and caused a severe injury to the head of the victim. The medical report also substantiates that the injured sustained an injury to his head. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the investigation is still in progress and that the custodial interrogation of petitioner No.1 is essential for the effective investigation of the case. It is also submitted that the presence of petitioner No.2 may be required for the purpose of investigation. Thus, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the stage of the investigation, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

8. The specific allegation against the petitioners is that, during an altercation allegedly initiated by petitioner No.2/accused No.2 against the victim, the de facto complainant intervened, whereupon petitioner No.1 came to the support of petitioner No.2 and, wielding a meat-chopping knife, attacked the de facto complainant, his mother. In the course of the occurrence, the knife allegedly struck the head of the victim, causing injuries.

9. At the stage of considering anticipatory bail, the Court is not ordinarily required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or record definitive findings on disputed questions of fact. The discretion is to be exercised having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the requirements of investigation, the possibility of custodial interrogation, and the balance between personal liberty and a fair and effective investigation. (Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1).

10. Whether petitioner No.1, while wielding the knife, acted with the intention or knowledge necessary to attract the alleged offence cannot be conclusively determined at this stage and requires investigation with reference to the circumstances of the occurrence, the manner of use of the weapon, the nature of the injuries, and other material that may emerge. The contention that the act was an instinctive response during the altercation is a matter for investigation and, if necessary, trial. At the same time, such contention is relevant to determining the precise nature of the alleged offence, including the applicability of Section 118(1) or (2) of the BNS.

11. It is not in dispute that an occurrence took place, and the specific overt act attributed to petitioner No.1 is the use of a meat-chopping knife resulting in an injury to the head of the victim, who is stated to have sustained severe injuries. Having regard to the nature of the weapon, the injury caused, the gravity of the allegations, and the prosecution’s stated requirement for custodial interrogation while the investigation is in progress, this Court is not inclined to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to petitioner No.1. The prayer of petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is accordingly rejected.

12. The role of petitioner No.2, however, stands on a different footing. Even according to the prosecution, petitioner No.2 allegedly initiated the altercation, which resulted in the involvement of petitioner No.1, but no other specific overt act is attributed to him during the occurrence. Though the prosecution submits that his presence may be required for investigation and that custodial interrogation may become necessary, his presence and cooperation can, in the circumstances, be secured by imposing appropriate conditions. This would safeguard the interests of the investigation without, at this stage, subjecting him to arrest.

13. Having regard to the distinct role attributed to petitioner No.2, the absence of any further specific overt act, and the possibility of securing her cooperation through appropriate conditions, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

14. Accordingly, petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is granted anticipatory bail, subject to following conditions.

(A) The petitioner/accused No.2 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Kollur Police Station, Cyberabad District, on or before 03.10.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release him on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer. (B) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Tuesday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of his release on bail or until the filing of the final result, whichever is earlier. (C) The petitioner shall remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation. (D) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation. (E) The petitioner 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. (F) The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

(G) Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings before the court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

15. 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.

16. In the result, the petition is partly allowed: the petition filed by Petitioner No. 2/Accused No. 2 is allowed, while the petition filed by Petitioner No. 1/Accused No. 1 is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 18.09.2026 mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14765 OF 2026

DATE: 18.09.2026

mmr