CRLP/11253/2026 of Sayyad Bilaal Ahmed 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 accused No.3/Juvenile in Conflict with Law (for short, “JCL”) in FIR No.196 of 2026 on the file of Asifnagar Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 105, 49 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and Section 180 of Motor Vehicles Act.

3. Heard Mr.S.Mahesh, 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 21.06.2026, a report was lodged alleging that, while the sister of the de facto complainant was proceeding on foot, a car bearing Registration No. AP05BH3456 was driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against her from behind, and fled from the scene. As a result of the impact, she sustained grievous injuries all over her body. Based on these allegations, the present crime was registered. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the Child in Conflict with Law (for short, “CCL”) was driving the car and that accused Nos. 1 to 3 had instigated him to drive the vehicle at a high speed, which ultimately resulted in the accident.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. Even according to the prosecution, the petitioner was not driving the offending vehicle. It is further submitted that the CCL was enlarged on bail on 15.07.2026. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is a student with no criminal antecedents. It is also submitted 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 investigation has revealed the specific involvement of the petitioner. It is submitted that the CCL acted at the instigation of the petitioner and the other accused, which ultimately resulted in the accident. It is further contended that the investigation is at a nascent stage and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for conducting a fair and effective investigation. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the application for anticipatory bail 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, along with the other accused, instigated the CCL to drive the offending vehicle in a rash and reckless manner, which allegedly resulted in the accident causing grievous injuries to the victim, who subsequently succumbed to those injuries. Thus, the specific role attributed to the petitioner is one of alleged instigation and not that of the driver of the offending vehicle.

9. It is a well-settled principle of law that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to balance the individual's right to personal liberty with the societal interest in ensuring a fair and effective investigation. The factors ordinarily required to be taken into consideration include the nature and gravity of the accusation, the precise role attributed to the accused, the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, the possibility of the accused absconding or evading the process of law, the likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with the prosecution evidence, the antecedents of the accused, the requirement of custodial interrogation, and the larger interests of justice. These principles have been authoritatively laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, and earlier in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, wherein it was held that anticipatory bail is a facet of the fundamental right to personal liberty and that arrest should not be made merely because it is lawful to do so.

10. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions, the nature of the allegations, and the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner is admittedly a juvenile, i.e., a Child in Conflict with Law, within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, “JJ Act”). The legislative policy underlying the Juvenile Justice Act is reformative and rehabilitative rather than punitive. Section 12 of the Act embodies the rule that a child alleged to be in conflict with law shall ordinarily be released on bail, irrespective of whether the offence is bailable or non-bailable, unless there appear reasonable grounds for believing that such release is likely to bring the child into association with any known criminal, expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.

11. Further, although the JJ Act does not expressly provide for the grant of anticipatory bail, absence of an express provision does not ipso facto bar the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (or the corresponding provision under the BNSS), particularly where such exercise advances the object of protecting the liberty of a juvenile and does not conflict with the scheme of the JJ Act. The beneficial provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act are intended to safeguard the liberty and welfare of children in conflict with law and, therefore, deserve a liberal and purposive interpretation.

12. In the present case, the petitioner is not alleged to have driven the offending vehicle. His alleged involvement is confined to instigating the CCL to drive at a high speed. The petitioner is stated to be a student with no criminal antecedents and has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer as and when required. At this stage, the prosecution has not placed any material before this Court to demonstrate that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for carrying out a fair and effective investigation.

There is also no material indicating that the petitioner is likely to abscond, tamper with the prosecution evidence, influence witnesses, or otherwise impede the investigation.

13. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, the reformative philosophy underlying the JJ Act, the settled principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, 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 grant of anticipatory bail.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall surrender before the Juvenile Justice Board, on or before 10.08.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Juvenile Justice Board shall release him on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the magistrate concerned. (B) The petitioner shall appear before the Juvenile Justice Board as and when required and shall cooperate fully with the investigation.

(C) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Juvenile Justice Board 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.11253 OF 2026

DATE : 28.07.2026

CHS