CRLP/12589/2026 of Pidaparthi Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy Vs The State of Telangana on 2 September 2026

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.1 in FIR No.758 of on the file of Dundigal police station, Cyberabad Commissionerate for the offence punishable under Section 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr. N. Sri Ram, learned Counsel representing M. Keshav Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.07.2026, at about 6:20 a.m., the father of the de facto complainant/deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. TS 08 HJ 4724 near Tank Bund, Dundigal Lake. At that time, the accused, while driving a Ford Figo car bearing Registration No. TS 08 GD 6919, allegedly came from the wrong direction and, in a rash, negligent, and intoxicated manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased fell on the road and sustained bleeding and serious injuries to his head and waist. He was initially shifted to S.V. Hospital, Bahadurpally, and thereafter to ASI Hospital, S.R. Nagar, for better treatment. During the course of treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. It is further alleged that, at the time of the accident, the accused was under the influence of alcohol and that the alcohol analyser test revealed 92 mg/100 ml of alcohol. Based on the complaint lodged by the son of the deceased, a crime was registered under Section 125(a) of the BNS. Subsequently, upon the death of the injured and the allegation that the accused had driven the vehicle in an intoxicated condition, with the knowledge that such driving was likely to cause death, the Investigating Officer sought alteration of the offences to Section 105 of the BNS and Section 185(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the occurrence was an unfortunate road traffic accident, without any intention, motive, or premeditation on the part of the petitioner to cause the death of the deceased. It is further submitted that the allegations regarding consumption of alcohol are matters of evidence and are required to be established by the prosecution through medical, scientific, and other relevant material during the course of investigation and trial. The petitioner apprehends his arrest and submits that he is a permanent resident with deep roots in society, that there is no likelihood of his absconding, and that he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail. According to the petitioner, the material evidence has already been collected and is in the custody of the Investigating Agency. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Accordingly, the petitioner prays that he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner/A-1 are serious in nature. It is submitted that the petitioner allegedly drove the car in a rash and negligent manner, came from the wrong direction, and, while in an intoxicated condition, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. The allegation of drunk driving, according to the prosecution, is not merely an apprehension arising during the course of investigation. An alcohol analyser test was conducted on the petitioner and allegedly revealed a level of alcohol substantially beyond the permissible limit prescribed by law. Thus, the prosecution contends that the petitioner knowingly drove the vehicle in an intoxicated condition and in such a manner as was likely to endanger human life, resulting in the death of the deceased.

6.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that, upon the death of the injured/deceased, the section of law was altered to Section 105 of the BNS and that the investigation is still in progress. It is further submitted that, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required for the purpose of a fair and effective investigation. It is also contended that, considering the gravity of the offence, there is a possibility of the petitioner influencing witnesses and otherwise interfering with the investigation. On these grounds, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials available on record.

8. As per the allegations, the petitioner drove the car from the wrong direction in a rash and negligent manner and, while allegedly under the influence of alcohol, caused the accident in which the deceased sustained injuries and subsequently succumbed to them. The alleged alcohol analyser report showing 92 mg/100 ml, prima facie, constitutes material relevant to the allegation under the MV Act and is capable of being considered along with the other scientific and procedural material collected during the investigation.

9. However, insofar as the invocation of Section 105 of the BNS is concerned, the prosecution is required to establish the essential ingredients of culpable homicide as contemplated under Section 100 of the BNS, including the requisite element of intention or knowledge, as the case may be. The mere occurrence of a fatal road traffic accident, by itself, does not establish the ingredients of culpable homicide. The absence of motive or premeditation, though not by itself determinative or sufficient to exclude the element of knowledge, is a relevant circumstance while examining the nature of the alleged act and the requisite mental element. At the same time, Section 106 of the BNS specifically deals with causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. Therefore, the material contained in the alteration report and the Case Diary requires due consideration to ascertain the factual and evidentiary basis for invoking Section 105 of the BNS, particularly with regard to the allegation that the petitioner possessed the requisite knowledge contemplated by the said provision. The alleged intoxication of the petitioner is undoubtedly a relevant circumstance in assessing the manner in which the vehicle was driven and the circumstances surrounding the occurrence. Nevertheless, the effect and evidentiary significance of such intoxication, as well as its nexus with the requisite mental element for the offence under Section 105 of the BNS, are matters to be examined on the basis of the material collected during investigation and, ultimately, at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.

10. At the stage of consideration of an application for anticipatory bail, however, this Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or record a final finding regarding the applicability of the penal provision invoked by the prosecution. The parameters governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure require the Court to strike a balance between the individual’s right to personal liberty and the legitimate requirements of a fair and effective investigation. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court in matters of anticipatory bail and held that such discretion is required to be exercised having regard to, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the possibility of the accused absconding or interfering with the investigation, and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

11. In the present case, the material relied upon by the prosecution, including the identity of the vehicle and its driver, the occurrence of the accident, the medical treatment administered to the deceased, the subsequent death, and the alleged alcohol analyser test result, appears, prima facie, to be substantially capable of being investigated and proved through documentary, medical, scientific, and other material evidence. The prosecution has not, at this stage, placed specific material demonstrating that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for a fair and effective investigation.

12. Having regard to the nature of the material presently relied upon, the petitioner’s undertaking to cooperate with the investigation, without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the allegations or on the ultimate applicability of Section 105 of the BNS, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail, subject to appropriate conditions to secure the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation and to safeguard the interests of the prosecution.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions:

a) Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Dundigal police station, Cyberabad Commissionerate on or before 08.09.2026. Upon such surrender, or in the event of his arrest, the Station House Officer shall release him on bail upon his executing 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 Station House Officer every Tuesday and Friday between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for a period of ten (12) weeks from the date of his release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects.

c) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the proceedings before the trial court.

d) Additionally, the petitioner shall remain available as and when required by the investigating officer during the course of investigation.

e) The petitioner shall neither directly nor indirectly induce, threaten, influence, nor contact any prosecution witness, nor shall they tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

f) In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions by the petitioner, the prosecution shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps seeking cancellation of bail.

14. 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.

_______________ Date: 02.09.2026 N.TUKARAMJI, J

MRKR

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12589 OF 2026

02.09.2026 MRKR