CRLP/11266/2026 of Mohmammad Akbar Vs The State of Telangana on 29 July 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the 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.82 of 2026 of Golconda Police Station, Hyderabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1) read with 3(5) of Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short, “IPC”).

3. Heard Mr.V.Raghunath, learned Senior counsel representing Mr.Kadire Ajith Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent- State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a report alleging that on 15.02.2026, at about 1:00 p.m., while he was returning home near Balahissar Bus Stop, Golconda, the petitioner/Accused No.1, along with two others, assaulted him with sticks, causing grievous injuries to his head and back. It is further alleged that, after lodging the Medico-Legal Case (MLC) report and while he was returning from the Golconda Police Station, two persons again attacked him with sticks, resulting in a fracture to his left hand and shoulder. Based on the said report, the police registered the present crime.

5.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are wholly baseless and that he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is further contended that, even according to the averments in the complaint, there is an unexplained delay of two days in lodging the report. It is pleaded that, even if the allegations contained in the complaint are accepted at their face value, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 109 of the BNS. It is further contended that the police had initially registered a crime under Section 118(1) of the BNS. However, as an afterthought, the Investigating Agency altered the penal provision without any factual basis and, in the process, deprived the petitioner of the statutory safeguard of issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

5.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that, in fact, the complainant had assaulted the accused, resulting in injuries to Accused No.2, and that the corresponding medical record substantiating the same is available. It is further contended that the complaint lodged by the petitioner in this regard was not taken on file by the police concerned. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is an employee of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

(GHMC), is willing to cooperate with the investigation, and undertakes to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, basing on the medical report, pleaded that, there are specific allegations against the petitioner as to his involvement in the offence. Further considering the statement admission by the co-accused, the intention of the petitioner and other accused came to light and accordingly section has been altered to 109 of BNS. He further pleads that the petitioner is unavailable for investigation and his custodial interrogation may be required for effective investigation. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

8. The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is that, acting in concert with the other accused, attacked the de facto complainant with the intention of causing his death.

9. The principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 438 of the BNSS are well settled. The provision is intended to secure the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed by protecting an individual against arbitrary, unnecessary or mala fide arrest. At the same time, the power is discretionary and is required to be exercised judiciously, having due regard to the societal interest in ensuring a fair, effective, and uninhibited investigation.

10. Further, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to strike a delicate balance between the competing interests of safeguarding the liberty of the accused and preserving the legitimate interests of the investigating agency. The Court must examine, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the precise role attributed to the accused, the severity of the punishment prescribed for the alleged offence, the antecedents of the accused, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence and whether custodial interrogation is genuinely necessary for the purpose of an effective investigation.

11. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary but salutary remedy intended to protect individual liberty and that no inflexible or straitjacket formula can govern its exercise. The Court emphasized that each case must be decided on its own facts, keeping in view the competing interests of personal liberty and the administration of criminal justice. Similarly, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned that arrest is not to be made routinely or mechanically. The investigating agency is duty-bound to satisfy itself that arrest is necessary for one or more of the purposes contemplated under law, and the power of arrest cannot be exercised merely because the offence alleged is cognizable.

12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that, even according to the prosecution version, the incident comprises two distinct occurrences. In the second occurrence where two persons allegedly attacked, the de facto complainant is stated to have sustained a fracture injury to his left upper limb. Significantly, the complaint does not attribute any overt act to the petitioner in respect of the second occurrence, nor does it specifically allege his presence or participation therein. The prosecution, however, seeks to implicate the petitioner in the overall occurrence primarily on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of a co-accused, from which it seeks to infer the petitioner's participation and common intention. At this stage, it is neither necessary nor permissible for this Court to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidentiary value or admissibility of such material, as those issues are matters for investigation and, if necessary, for determination during trial.

13. In the present case, the petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate fully with the investigating agency and in the absence of exceptional circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court demonstrating that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for the purpose of an effective investigation. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner, the stage of investigation, and the settled principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interests of justice would be adequately protected by extending the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions to secure his availability during investigation.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions: (A). The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Golconda Police Station, Hyderabad District, on or before 13.08.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release the petitioner 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 appear before the Station House Officer on every Monday and Saturday between 10.00 a.m. to 03.00 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 petitioner shall remain available for interrogation as and when required during the course of investigation and shall extend full cooperation to the investigation. (D) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein. (E) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall he tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

15. 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: 29.07.2026 mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11266 OF 2026

DATE : 29.07.2026

mmr