CRLP/13999/2026 of Bandavaram Krushnakanth, Vs The State of Telangana, on 7 September 2026

COMMON ORDER:

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Sections 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

2. As the petitioners in both the criminal petitions are accused in the same crime and seeking analogous relief, these petitions are heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order.

3. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in FIR No.225 of 2026 on the file of Kamlapur Police Station, Warangal District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2) and 109 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

4. Heard Mohammed Nazeeruddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a report with the police stating that, on 18.08.2026 at about 11:30 a.m., while she was alone in her house, her mother-in-law, and her co-sister came to her house and picked up a quarrel with her. In that regard, the de facto complainant dialled 100. The police immediately responded, intervened, pacified both parties, and advised them to appear before the Police Station at about 4:00 p.m. along with their respective elders. However, at about 4:30 p.m., her husband/accused No.1, her father-in-law, her mother-in-law, her brother-in-law and her co-sister along with some others, allegedly came to her house. Apprehending danger, the de facto complainant called her parents to the spot. Thereafter, all the above-mentioned persons are alleged to have collectively attacked the de facto complainant and her parents. On hearing the commotion, the neighbours came to the spot and attempted to intervene and stop the quarrel. It is further alleged that, during the course of the said incident, accused No.1 with an intention to kill the mother of the de facto complainant, deliberately hit her with a car, causing her to fall down, and thereafter ran the vehicle over her, thereby causing her severe injuries. Immediately thereafter, the de facto complainant shifted her injured mother to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, and subsequently to Isha Hospital for better treatment. It is further stated that the injured sustained severe injuries, including fractures to both hands, multiple external injuries, and severe internal injuries resulting in heavy internal bleeding. She is stated to be undergoing treatment in the ICU, and the attending doctors are alleged to have informed the de facto complainant that her condition is critical. Basing on the report lodged by the de facto complainant, a crime came to be registered.

6.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there are matrimonial disputes between the complainant and accused

No.1. It is further submitted that, in the said incident, the complainant and her family members attacked petitioner No.2/accused No.3 and threatened them with dire consequences, pursuant to which a crime was also registered vide Cr.No.224 of 2026. Learned counsel submits that accused No.3 had sustained injuries and that, while the accused No.1 was taking her to the hospital for treatment, the incident in question occurred. It is contended that there was no intention whatsoever on the part of the petitioners to cause the death of any person.

6.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 neither actively participated in nor interfered with the alleged incident and that they cannot be held liable merely by invoking Section 3(5) of the BNS on the ground of common intention. According to the learned counsel, such invocation, in the absence of any specific overt act or material indicating the existence of a common intention would be improper. It is also submitted that the petitioners are willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Thus, learned counsel prayed that anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioners.

7.1. Learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the petition and submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners, acting with a common intention, visited the house of the complainant and attacked the complainant and her mother. It is further submitted that accused No.1 attacked the mother of the complainant and caused her severe injuries, and that the injured is presently in a critical condition.

7.2. It is contended that the manner in which the incident occurred and the nature and severity of the injuries sustained by the injured themselves demonstrate the intention of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant opposed the petition and prayed for dismissal of the petitions.

8. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also opposed the bail application and submitted that the investigation is still under progress. It is contended that petitioner/accused No.1 caused the alleged incident with an intention shared by the other petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 are cooperating with the investigation, however the custodial presence of the petitioners may be necessary for the purpose of conducting an effective investigation. Accordingly, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petitions.

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

10. The substantive allegations against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 5 are that, in furtherance of their common intention, they went to the house of the de facto complainant and attacked her and her mother. It is specifically alleged that petitioner No. 1/ Accused No.1 deliberately hit the mother of the de facto complainant with a car and, after she fell to the ground, ran the vehicle over her, thereby causing severe injuries. The investigation is still in progress.

11. At this stage, the Court is required to consider the necessity for custodial interrogation and the material presently available against each petitioner, without undertaking a detailed appreciation of the evidence or recording any conclusive finding on the facts. The allegation of common intention against Accused Nos. 2 to 5 is required to be considered in the light of Section 3(5) of the BNS, which fastens liability where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention. The existence of such common intention and the nexus of each accused with the alleged criminal act are matters to be assessed from the facts and circumstances of the case. Mere presence at the scene, by itself, would not conclusively establish common intention.

12. Having regard to the gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to petitioner No. 1/ Accused No.1, and the severity of the injuries allegedly caused to the injured, this Court is of the considered view that his custodial presence may be required for the effective investigation of the case. Whether the alleged act was committed with the requisite intention, and whether the prosecution can ultimately establish the ingredients of the offences alleged, are matters to be determined during the investigation and trial. They need not, and cannot, be conclusively determined at this stage.

13. Insofar as petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, though allegations of common intention have been made against them, the material presently available does not indicate the necessity for their custodial interrogation. The distinction between petitioner No. 1/ Accused No.1 and petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5 is justified by the specific allegation that the actual assault resulting in severe injuries was committed by Accused No.1. This assessment is confined to the question of custodial necessity and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or on the ultimate applicability of Section 3(5) of the BNS.

14. In view of the foregoing, and having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to petitioner No. 1/ Accused No.1, the severity of the injuries, and the stage of the investigation, this Court is of the view that the prayer for anticipatory bail made by petitioner No. 1/ Accused No.1 does not merit acceptance and is liable to be dismissed.

15. However, as the custodial presence of petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5 has not been shown to be indispensable for the investigation, their prayer for anticipatory bail deserves consideration, subject to appropriate conditions ensuring their availability for interrogation and investigation and preventing any interference with the investigation or witnesses.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petitions are allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Kamalapur Police Station, Warangal District, on or before 11.09.2026. 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.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer.

(B) The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 shall appear before the Station House Officer on every Tuesday and Saturday between 10.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m. for a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of their release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects. (C) The petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 shall remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation. (D) The petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 shall furnish their complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation. (E) The petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall they tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (F) The petitioners 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.

17. 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.

___________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 07.09.2026 LPD/VPT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.13900 AND 13999 OF 2026

DATE : 07.09.2026

LPD/VPT