CRLP/11458/2026 of Banoth Balu 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 petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in FIR No.194 of 2026 of Maripeda Police Station, Mahabubabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 189(2), 191(3), 126(2), 19, 118(1) read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

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

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.07.2026, against the backdrop of a dispute concerning a pathway at the agricultural lands, the petitioners, along with the other accused, allegedly attacked the victims with sticks and stones with the intention of causing their death, thereby inflicting injuries all over their bodies. Based on the report lodged by the victims, the present crime was registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the de facto complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners in the present case. According to him, it was, in fact, the de facto complainant and his associates who had attacked the petitioners and caused them grievous injuries, pursuant to which a complaint was lodged and registered as Crime No. 195 of 2026. It is contended that the present crime has been registered solely as a counterblast to the said complaint with a view to circumvent its consequences. Learned counsel further submits that the dispute between the parties pertains to a pathway over agricultural land and that, despite being the injured parties, the petitioners have been falsely implicated by attributing exaggerated allegations against them. He contends that the material collected during the investigation does not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section relating to attempt to murder. It is further submitted that the petitioners are permanent residents having a fixed place of abode, are willing to cooperate with the investigation, and, to the best of their knowledge, a substantial part of the investigation has already been completed. Therefore, there is no necessity for their custodial interrogation. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioners.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail petition, contending that, against the backdrop of the civil dispute, the petitioners assaulted the de facto complainant and his family members, causing them serious injuries. However, it is submitted that the medical certificate is still awaited to ascertain the nature and severity of the injuries. He further contends that the complaint attributes specific overt acts to the petitioners and the other accused and that a holistic reading of the complaint prima facie discloses that the petitioners, acting in concert with the other accused and with the intention of causing the death of the victims, assaulted them with a knife, thereby attracting the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that the petitioners have remained unavailable for investigation. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, their custodial interrogation may be necessary for an effective and fair investigation. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.

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

8. The allegations against the petitioners are that they, in furtherance of their common intention and in concert with the other accused, attacked the de facto complainant and the other victims with the intention of causing their death and inflicted grievous injuries upon them. It is, however, not in dispute that civil disputes concerning the pathway exist between the petitioners and the de facto complainant. It is equally undisputed that a counter crime has also been registered at the instance of the petitioners alleging that the de facto complainant and his associates had assaulted the petitioners and their family members, causing them injuries. The existence of the case and counter case prima facie indicates that there was a mutual altercation in which members of both factions sustained injuries. At this stage, it would neither be appropriate nor permissible for this Court to determine which party was the aggressor or to adjudicate upon the truthfulness of the rival versions. Those are matters falling squarely within the domain of investigation and, if warranted, adjudication during the course of trial on the basis of legally admissible evidence.

9. It is a settled principle that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS, the Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or undertake a roving enquiry into the merits of the rival allegations. Nor can the Court embark upon a mini trial to ascertain the veracity of the prosecution case or the defence put forth by the accused. The jurisdiction at the stage of anticipatory bail is confined to assessing whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the custodial arrest of the accused is warranted or whether the interests of justice can adequately be protected by imposing appropriate conditions.

10. The Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, authoritatively held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary yet salutary remedy intended to safeguard individual liberty against arbitrary arrest and must be exercised on well- recognized judicial principles rather than by adopting inflexible or rigid limitations. The said principle has been consistently reaffirmed in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein the Constitution Bench observed that the discretion to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised having regard to the facts of each case and that such relief is not to be denied merely because the allegations disclose a serious offence.

11. It is equally well settled that while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to strike a delicate balance between the individual's fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed and the societal interest in ensuring a fair and effective investigation. Among the relevant considerations are the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of the accused absconding from justice, the likelihood of influencing or intimidating witnesses or tampering with the evidence, and, above all, whether custodial interrogation is genuinely necessary for an effective investigation. These parameters have been succinctly reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1. The Court must, therefore, assess whether the object of the investigation would be frustrated in the absence of custodial interrogation or whether the same can effectively proceed while protecting the liberty of the accused through suitably tailored conditions.

12. In the case on hand, although the allegations levelled against the petitioners are undoubtedly serious and specific overt acts have been attributed to them, the surrounding circumstances cannot be overlooked. The existence of a case and counter case arising out of the same occurrence prima facie suggests that the incident requires a comprehensive and impartial investigation to ascertain the genesis of the occurrence and the respective roles played by each of the parties. The petitioners have expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigating agency and to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. There is no material presently placed before the Court to indicate that the petitioners are likely to abscond, evade the investigation, tamper with the prosecution evidence, or influence the witnesses. Equally, except for a general assertion made by the prosecution, no specific material has been placed before this Court demonstrating that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is indispensable for an effective investigation.

13. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the accusations, the existence of rival versions of the occurrence, the progress of the investigation, and the settled principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS, this Court is of the considered view that the interests of justice would be adequately safeguarded by extending the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to conditions ensuring their cooperation with the investigation and protecting the fairness and integrity of the investigative process.

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.1 and 2 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Maripeda Police Station, Mahabubabad District, on or before 12.08.2026. 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.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five 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 or till filing of the final result, whichever is earlier. (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.

12. 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 mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11458 OF 2026

DATE : 28.07.2026

mmr