CRLP/13907/2026 of Upender Mundla Vs The State of Telangana on 7 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.2 and 3 in Crime No.119 of 2026 on the file of the Narsimhulapet Police Station, Mahabubabad District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 109 r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

3. Heard Mr. V.Raghunath, learned counsel representing Mr. Nallamasu Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syed

Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a police report stating that, on 13.07.2026 at about 3:30 p.m., the accused No.1 and the other accused allegedly ploughed the agricultural land of the de-facto complainant with tractors, damaged the water pipeline and dumped thorny brushwood in the field. When the de-facto complainant questioned them about the same and the pathway being claimed by them, accused No.1 allegedly abused and assaulted her with hands and sticks, resulting in a bleeding injury to her head. When her son intervened, the petitioner/A2 allegedly assaulted him on the head with a stick. It is further alleged that accused No.1 drove the tractor towards the husband of the de facto complainant and hit him, causing bleeding injuries to his head and neck, and also threatened them with dire consequences. Thereafter, the injured persons were shifted to the Government Hospital at Mahabubabad for treatment, and the husband of the de facto complainant was subsequently referred to MGM Hospital, Warangal, for further treatment. Basing on the report of the de facto complainant, a crime came to be registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated merely because of their relationship with accused No.1. It is further submitted that there are existing civil disputes between the de-facto complainant and the family of the petitioners. Even if the allegations in the complaint are taken into consideration, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners, except the allegation regarding the use of the alleged weapon causing injury. It is contended that the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant, as reflected in the medical record, do not make out any case warranting an apprehension that the petitioners intended to cause the death of the witnesses. It is further submitted that, in fact, the de facto complainant and his family members had attacked the petitioners, pursuant to which a police report was also lodged regarding the said occurrence. In the said incident, petitioner No.1/accused No.2 is stated to have sustained a severe injury to his hand. It is contended that, in order to get over the said occurrence and as a counterblast to the complaint lodged by the petitioners, the de facto complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners in the present case. Nevertheless, 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 may be granted to the petitioners.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that all the accused attacked the de-facto complainant, her sons and her husband, and caused injuries to them. It is further submitted that accused No.1 drove the tractor against the husband of the de facto complainant and caused injuries, which clearly demonstrates the intention of the petitioners and their common intention to commit the alleged offence, though specific overt acts are attributed to accused No.1. It is further submitted that the physical presence of the petitioners may be required for custodial interrogation and for conducting a fair and effective investigation. Thus, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, it is settled legal position that, at the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court need not conduct a detailed enquiry into the allegations or examine the veracity of the pleadings of either side. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the necessity for custodial interrogation, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice or repeating the offence, the likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and the impact of granting bail on the investigation are relevant factors to be considered.

8. In the instant case, the specific allegation is against accused No.2 regarding causing injury to the son of the de facto complainant; however, there is no specific overt act attributed to petitioner No.2/accused No.3. Further, petitioner No.2/accused No.3, as per the prosecution, is involved in two other similar offences. Having regard to these aspects and considering the willingness expressed by petitioner No.2/accused No.3 to cooperate with the investigation, while keeping in view the requirement of ensuring a fair and unhindered investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the petition, to the extent of petitioner No.2/accused No.3, can be considered favourably.

9. However, having regard to the antecedents of petitioner No.1/accused No.2 and the specific allegations attributed to him, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner No.1/accused No.2 and the case against petitioner No.1/accused No.2 is dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed, and petitioner No.2/accused No.3 is granted anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions: (A) The Petitioner No.2/accused No.3 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Narsimhulapet Police Station, Mahabubabad District, on or before 21.09.2026. 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) each with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer.

(B) The Petitioner No.2/accused No.3 shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of their release on bail or until the filing of the final result, whichever is earlier. (C) The Petitioner No.2/accused No.3 shall remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation. (D) The Petitioner No.2/accused No.3 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 Petitioner No.2/accused No.3 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 willful 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.

11. 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 No.13907 OF 2026 CNR No.HBHC010583272026 DATE: 07.09.2026

LPD/VPT