CRLP/13834/2026 of Banothu Vijaya Vs The State of Telangana on 1 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 Nos.4 in FIR No.251 of 2026 on the file of Chivvemla police station, Chivvemla Mandal, Suryapet District for the offences punishable under Sections 288 and 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and Section 9-B(1)(b) of Explosives Act, 1884 (for short, “EA”) and Sections 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short, “ESA”).

3. Heard Mr. A. Prabhakar, 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 28.07.2026, at about 12:30 hours, the de facto complainant and his team, acting on reliable information, conducted a raid at the house of Accused No.1. During the raid, they allegedly found explosive substances, viz. fuse wire, detonators, and Gelatine sticks. On interrogation, it was revealed that Accused No.2 had supplied the said explosive materials for the purpose of blasting rocks for a consideration of Rs.8,000/-. Based on the report lodged in that regard, a crime was registered. During the course of the subsequent investigation, it was allegedly revealed through other accused that the seized explosive materials had been procured from the petitioner/Accused No.4, who is a licence holder.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and that there is no material on record to establish that the seized explosive materials were, in fact, sold or supplied by the petitioner. It is further contended that, although offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the ESA have been alleged, Section 5, relating to possession of explosive substances, is not attracted to the petitioner, as she is a licence holder. It is also contended that Section 6 applies to an abettor and that there is no material on record to establish that the petitioner abetted the commission of any offence. Learned counsel further submits that the other offences alleged under the EA is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.

5.2. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are based solely on the confessional statements of the other accused and that there is no independent material to establish that the seized explosives were supplied by the petitioner or that they formed part of the petitioner’s licensed stock of explosives. In the absence of such material, it is contended that the petitioner cannot be implicated in the case or subjected to further proceedings merely on the basis of such statements. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner came to be implicated during the course of investigation on the basis of the confessional statements of the other accused. It is submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that the petitioner is presently unavailable for the purpose of investigation. Her presence may be necessary for custodial interrogation to facilitate an effective and comprehensive investigation.

On these grounds, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays 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. The essence of the allegation against the petitioner is that, being a licence holder, she supplied the explosive substances to the other accused in contravention of the conditions of her licence. On perusal of the material on record, it appears that the allegation against the petitioner substantially rests upon the statements/confessional statements of the co-accused. The petitioner has denied involvement and contended that there is no independent material connecting her with the seized explosives or establishing that they formed part of her licensed stock.

9. At the stage of considering anticipatory bail, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the truthfulness, admissibility, or evidentiary value of the allegations or record any definitive finding on the merits. The principles governing such consideration are well settled in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court emphasised that the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the circumstances of the case, and the requirements of a fair investigation are relevant considerations.

10. Though the allegations are undoubtedly serious, the material presently available does not disclose any independent or convincing circumstance establishing that the seized explosives were supplied by the petitioner or formed part of her licensed stock. The petitioner has also expressed her willingness to cooperate with the investigation. The mere assertion that custodial interrogation is required cannot, by itself, warrant denial of anticipatory bail; the necessity for such interrogation must be assessed with reference to the facts and investigative requirements of the case.

11. In the present circumstances, no specific or convincing ground has been shown to demonstrate that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is indispensable for an effective investigation. Considering that the petitioner is a licence holder, that the allegation against her substantially rests upon the statements of the co-accused, and that she is willing to cooperate with the investigation, this Court is inclined to extend the protection of anticipatory bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

12. Accordingly, the petitioner's apprehension of arrest deserves to be protected by granting anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:

a) Petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Chivvemla police station, Chivvemla Mandal, Suryapet District on or before 10.09.2026. Upon such surrender, or in the event of their 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 Thursday between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of his release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects.

c) The petitioner shall furnish their complete residential addresses 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.

13. 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: 01.09.2026 N.TUKARAMJI, J

MRKR

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13834 OF 2026

01.09.2026 MRKR