CRLP/11448/2026 of Durkunala Rajaiah Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA on 28 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 the accused No.2 in FIR No.153 of 2026 on the file of Siddipet-III Town Police Station, Siddipet District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 109 read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr. Mohd. Asifuddin, 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 owing to ill feelings arising from the dumping of waste in front of the house of the de facto complainant, a wordy altercation ensued. During the altercation, the petitioner is alleged to have abused the de facto complainant in filthy language and assaulted her. Thereafter, accused No.1, who is the son of the petitioner, allegedly arrived at the spot armed with a knife and attacked the son of the de facto complainant. It is further alleged that, while the petitioner and accused No.3 caught hold of the de facto complainant, her husband, accused No.1 attacked her son and husband with a knife, causing severe injuries with the intention of committing their murder. Thereafter, the accused fled from the scene. It is further alleged that the petitioner beat the de facto complainant, abused her, and proclaimed that they would eliminate her family someday. The injured were shifted to the hospital for treatment, and, based on the report lodged, the present crime was registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are baseless and that he has been falsely implicated in the crime with an ulterior motive. It is further contended that the petitioner is an elderly person with no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel also submits that the injuries allegedly sustained by the victims are simple in nature and that the incident does not constitute an offence of attempt to murder, as the material on record does not disclose the requisite mens rea to commit murder. It is further submitted that accused Nos.1 and 3 have already been granted bail by the trial Court, and that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer as and when required and by complying with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application, contending that the petitioner’s involvement in the occurrence has been clearly narrated by the de facto complainant. According to the prosecution, all the accused acted in concert during the occurrence, and accused No.1 used a knife to inflict injuries upon the victims. It is further contended that the grant of regular bail to accused No.1 and anticipatory bail to accused No.3 does not, by itself, make out a favourable case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is still in progress; although 13 witnesses have been examined, the petitioner’s custodial interrogation may still be necessary. It is, therefore, prayed that the application be dismissed.

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

8. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, acting in concert with accused Nos.1 and 3, participated in the altercation that preceded the occurrence. It is alleged that while accused No.1 assaulted the de facto complainant, her husband, and her son with a knife, thereby causing injuries to them, the petitioner, along with accused No.3, restrained the victims and facilitated the commission of the offence. Thus, the specific overt act attributed to the petitioner is that of restraining the victims during the assault allegedly carried out by accused No.1.

9. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon a prima facie evaluation of the material available on record, this Court finds that the allegations against the petitioner are primarily founded on the assertion that he restrained the victims while accused No.1 allegedly inflicted injuries with a knife. Although such allegations require a thorough investigation, the role attributed to the petitioner, the fact that he is an elderly person, his expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and the present stage of investigation are relevant considerations while examining the prayer for anticipatory bail.

10. The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretionary remedy intended to safeguard the fundamental right to personal liberty. At the stage of considering an application, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or record findings on the merits of the prosecution case. The Court is required to examine whether the custodial interrogation of the accused is genuinely necessary, whether there exists a reasonable apprehension of misuse of the process of law, the nature and gravity of the accusations, the role attributed to the applicant, the likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with evidence, and the larger interests of justice.

11. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, held that the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (now Section 438 BNSS) is to be exercised judiciously, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case, and that no inflexible or rigid formula can govern the exercise of such discretion. Similarly, in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Supreme Court emphasized that arrest should not be made merely because it is lawful to do so, and that custodial interrogation should be resorted to only where it is demonstrably necessary for the purposes of investigation.

12. In the present case, the investigation has substantially progressed, and it is reported that as many as thirteen witnesses have already been examined. At this stage, no compelling material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for a fair and effective investigation. There is also nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner is likely to abscond, evade the process of law, influence witnesses, or tamper with the prosecution evidence. On the contrary, the petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the Investigating Officer and to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court.

13. In view of the nature of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, his age, the progress of the investigation, and the absence of any compelling necessity for custodial interrogation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. The interests of the prosecution and the investigation can be adequately protected by imposing appropriate conditions to secure the petitioner's presence for the Investigation.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed, subject to following conditions.

(A) The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Siddipet-III Town Police Station, Siddipet District on or before 10.08.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release him 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 Investigating officer on every Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of his release on bail or until the filing of the final result, whichever is earlier. (C) Additionally, the petitioner shall remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation. (D) 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. (E) 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.

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

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: 28.07.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11448 OF 2026

DATE : 28.07.2026

CHS