CRLP/11018/2026 of Chepuri Rajender 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 petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.9 and 10 in FIR No.351 of 2026 of Sircilla Town Police Station, Rajanna Sircialla District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 316(5), 316(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

3. Heard Mr.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.06.2026, the de facto complainant, acting upon official instructions, conducted a surprise inspection at the SWC Godown situated near Apparel Park, Sircilla. During the inspection, it was allegedly found that the SWC Manager and his staff, in collusion with the District Manager (DMO), Rudrangi IKP Centre, had cheated the Government by diverting paddy to certain rice mills through the use of fabricated lorry/truck sheets. It is alleged that, by adopting the said modus operandi, the accused unlawfully diverted Government paddy, accumulated illegal pecuniary gains, and misappropriated the proceeds among themselves. The specific allegation against the petitioners, who are the Managing Partners of their respective rice mills, is that they had purchased the diverted paddy. Based on the said report, the present crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are owners and Managing Partners of their respective rice mills and are lawfully engaged in the business of procurement and milling of paddy. It is contended that the petitioners have no connection whatsoever with the alleged diversion of Government paddy, the purported conspiracy, or any of the offences alleged against them. He further submits that neither the First Information Report nor the remand report pertaining to Accused Nos.1 to 6 contains any allegation or reference implicating the petitioners. It is only on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of Accused No.8 that the petitioners have subsequently been arrayed as accused in the present crime.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that the substantial part of the investigation has already been completed, the investigating agency having examined eight witnesses, and that even Accused Nos.1 to 6, who were arrested during the course of investigation, have since been enlarged on bail. It is further contended that, except for the offence punishable under Section 316(5) of the BNS, all the remaining offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment extending up to seven years. It is also submitted that the ingredients of the offence under Section 316(5) of the BNS are, prima facie, not attracted to the case of the petitioners. Learned counsel lastly submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and undertake to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be granted.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that all the accused had acted pursuant to a criminal conspiracy to divert Government paddy by generating and using fabricated lorry/truck sheets, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government and corresponding unlawful gain to themselves. It is contended that the principal accused, being Government officials entrusted with the management and distribution of the paddy, committed the alleged offences in furtherance of their common intention and criminal conspiracy, and that the role attributed to the petitioners forms an integral part of the same transaction. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be necessary for an effective and comprehensive investigation. On the aforesaid grounds, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

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

8. The gravamen of the prosecution case is that all the accused, acting in furtherance of their common intention and criminal conspiracy, diverted paddy procured through the IKP Centres by generating fabricated lorry/truck sheets and unlawfully transported the same to various rice mills, where it was allegedly purchased in consideration of illegal monetary payments. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners, being the Managing Partners of their respective rice mills, knowingly purchased the diverted paddy and thereby facilitated the commission of the alleged offences. The petitioners, on the other hand, contend that they are bona fide businessmen engaged in the lawful business of procuring and milling paddy and rice and that they have no connection of the offences alleged against them.

9. The principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 438 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are no longer res integra. The provision is enacted to safeguard the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty by protecting an individual against arbitrary or unwarranted arrest, while simultaneously ensuring that the investigation of cognizable offences is not obstructed. The power to grant anticipatory bail is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously upon a careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of each case.

10. It is equally well settled that, at the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence, adjudicate upon the correctness of the prosecution allegations, or determine the probable defence of the accused. Such an exercise would amount to a premature appreciation of evidence, which properly falls within the domain of trial. The Court is required only to ascertain whether, on the basis of the material presently available, the custodial arrest of the applicant is necessary for the purposes of investigation.

11. In the present case, the prosecution alleges that the petitioners acted in concert with the other accused in procuring paddy that had been illegally diverted from the IKP Centres. However, it is not in dispute that the implication of the petitioners has primarily emerged from the alleged confessional statement of a co-accused. At this stage, this Court is not required to examine either the evidentiary value or the admissibility of such material, as those questions are matters to be considered during the course of investigation and, if necessary, at the stage of trial.

12. The petitioners have expressed their willingness to cooperate fully with the investigation. There is no material placed before this Court indicating that the petitioners are likely to abscond, evade the process of law, tamper with the prosecution evidence, or influence witnesses. Further, except for a general assertion by the prosecution, no specific material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is indispensable for carrying the investigation to its logical conclusion.

13. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioners, 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 safeguarded by extending the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, however, subject to appropriate conditions to secure their availability during the course of investigation.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioners shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions: (A). The petitioners/Accused Nos.9 and 10 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Sircilla Town Police Station, Rajanna Sircialla District, on or before 13.08.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release the petitioners on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said Officer. (B) The petitioners 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 petitioners shall remain available for interrogation as and when required during the course of investigation and shall extend full cooperation to the investigation. (D) The petitioners shall furnish their complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein. (E) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall they 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.11018 OF 2026

DATE : 29.07.2026

mmr