CRLP/13612/2026 of Guggilla Hemalatha, Vs State of Telangana, on 31 August 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 petitioner is arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No.265 of 2026 on the file of Jagtial Rural Police Station, Jagtial District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 292, 118(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

3. Heard Mr.M.Bharath Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.05.2026, against the backdrop of a dispute regarding the flow of drainage water through the house of the petitioner/accused, an altercation took place between the parties. During the course of the altercation, the petitioner is alleged to have abused the victim in filthy language and assaulted her with a stick on her left hand, resulting in a severe injury. Based on the report lodged by the victim, the present crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false, baseless and devoid of merit, and that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged. He further submits that, even according to the averments contained in the complaint, the alleged occurrence took place on 19.05.2026, whereas the crime was registered only on 13.07.2026, and that there is no explanation whatsoever for the substantial delay in lodging the report. He further submits that the offences initially registered against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment for a period of less than seven years. However, at a subsequent stage, Section 118(1) of the BNS was altered to Section 118(2) of the BNS, allegedly with a view to depriving the petitioner of the benefit of issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition and submits that, though the crime was initially registered under Section 118(1) of the BNS, the section of law was subsequently altered to Section 118(2) of the BNS upon receipt of the medical report, which revealed that the victim had sustained a fracture of the upper limb. He further submits that the investigation is still in progress and that the custodial presence of the petitioner may be necessary for the purpose of conducting an effective investigation. Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the anticipatory-bail petition.

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

8. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that, during the course of the altercation, the petitioner assaulted the victim with a stick on her left hand, resulting in a fracture injury. The allegation, therefore, discloses a specific overt act attributable to the petitioner. At the same time, while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to assess the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the circumstances in which the alleged occurrence took place, and the necessity, if any, of custodial interrogation. The power to grant anticipatory bail is discretionary and is required to be exercised on a case-to-case basis, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, has held that the Court, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, ought to be generally guided by considerations including the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the applicant and the facts of the case.

9. In the present case, the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on 19.05.2026, whereas the crime came to be registered only on 13.07.2026. Though delay in lodging the FIR, by itself, cannot be treated as sufficient to discredit the prosecution case or to conclusively determine the entitlement of an accused to bail, the unexplained delay is nevertheless a relevant circumstance which may be taken into consideration along with the other facts emerging from the record. The Supreme Court has reiterated that the effect of delay depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and that delay, particularly when accompanied by other circumstances affecting the prima facie prosecution case, may be a relevant consideration.

10. Further, the petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by such conditions as may be imposed by this Court. There is no material placed before this Court, at this stage, to demonstrate that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for a fair and effective investigation. The mere assertion that the petitioner’s custodial presence may be required for investigation, without demonstrating why such investigation cannot effectively be undertaken while the petitioner is protected from arrest and subject to appropriate conditions, would not, by itself, justify denial of anticipatory bail. At the same time, the grant of anticipatory bail cannot be construed as an impediment to a lawful and effective investigation, and the petitioner is required to make himself available to the Investigating Officer and to comply with all lawful directions issued in that regard.

11. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the specific overt act attributed to the petitioner, the circumstances in which the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place, the delay of nearly two months in registration of the crime, the petitioner's willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and the absence of any material, at this stage, demonstrating the necessity of his custodial interrogation, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the ultimate outcome of the investigation, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to appropriate conditions designed to secure her availability for investigation and safeguard the interests of the prosecution.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Jagtial Rural Police Station, Jagtial District on or before 15.09.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release his 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 remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation. (C) 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.

(D) 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. (E) The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (F) 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.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 31.08.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13612 OF 2026

DATE: 31.08.2026

CHS