CRLP/11272/2026 of Dulgach Deepak alias Durgaj Deepak, Vs The State of Telangana on 24 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.215 of 2026 on the file of Mancherial Town Police Station, Ramagundam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr.TPS Harsh, learned counsel representing Mr.M.Pranav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mahmood, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.04.2026, the son of the de facto complainant, along with his friends and accused No.1, went to a bar and consumed liquor. It is alleged that, in the bar, accused No.1 brought certain persons to the spot and assaulted the son of the de facto complainant by hitting him on the head with empty beer bottles and sticks. The petitioner is alleged to have been present at the scene, participated in the occurrence, and has been named in the police report. Based on these allegations, the present crime was registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is contended that his name was included only at the instance of others who influenced the de facto complainant. He further submits that the petitioner had no role in the incident, much less any intention to cause injuries to the victim. It is also submitted that the investigation has been completed and that accused No.1 has already been granted bail by the trial Court. In view of the completion of the investigation, the absence of any specific allegations against the petitioner, and his willingness to cooperate with the investigating agency and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application, contending that the son of the de facto complainant sustained grievous injuries, as evidenced by the medical report, and that the petitioner’s involvement has emerged from the material collected during the investigation. It is further submitted that the investigation is still underway and that the petitioner's custodial interrogation may be necessary for an effective investigation. It is, therefore, contended that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may adversely affect the investigation and that the application deserves to be dismissed.

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

8. The principal allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with the other accused, assaulted the victim with an intention to kill and caused injuries. However, the material placed before this Court indicates that the petitioner's alleged involvement came to the knowledge of the de facto complainant through information received from others. Likewise, the prosecution appears to rely upon the statements of witnesses whose knowledge regarding the petitioner's involvement is also stated to be derivative in nature. At this stage, the material does not disclose any direct evidence indicating the specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner.

9. It is well settled that while considering an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, the Court is required to balance the individual's right to personal liberty with the interest of a fair and effective investigation. The nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the requirement of custodial interrogation, the possibility of the accused absconding, influencing witnesses, or tampering with evidence are among the relevant considerations. Mere seriousness of the allegations cannot, by itself, justify denial of anticipatory bail unless the custodial interrogation of the accused is shown to be necessary. (See Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694; Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1).

10. In the present case, having regard to the submissions advanced and the material placed on record, this Court finds no material indicating that the petitioner is likely to abscond, influence witnesses, or tamper with the evidence. The prosecution has also not demonstrated any compelling necessity for custodial interrogation at this stage. The petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The interests of the investigation can be adequately safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions to secure the petitioner's availability before the Investigating Officer and to ensure that he extends full cooperation with the course of investigation.

11. 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, Mancherial Town Police Station, Ramagundam on or before 07.08.2026. 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 Tuesday and Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of his release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects. (C) 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.

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

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: 24.07.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11272 OF 2026

DATE : 24.07.2026

CHS