CRLP/10625/2026 of Palakuri 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 Accused No. 6 in Crime No. 338 of 2026 of Amberpet Police Station, Hyderabad City, facing accusations for the offences punishable under Sections 308(5), 204, 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr. Kavali Vishnu Kanth, learned counsel, representing Mr.S.Mahesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 10625 of 2026

4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 10.06.2026, the petitioner contacted the de facto complainant through Instagram. On the same day, the de facto complainant allegedly received a WhatsApp message from an unknown person regarding the purchase of gold. Pursuant to the said conversation, on 11.06.2026, the de facto complainant was allegedly called to a place near D-Mart, Golnaka, Amberpet, where he met certain persons who introduced themselves as Task Force Police Officers. It is alleged that they criminally intimidated and assaulted him and compelled him to transfer a sum of Rs.21,000/- from his PhonePe account to a Google Pay account. The de facto complainant further alleged that, thereafter, some other persons joined the said individuals, forcibly took his credit card, withdrew Rs.20,640/- using the card at a petrol bunk, and also purchased liquor worth Rs.3,030/-, before leaving the place. Subsequently, the de facto complainant lodged a police report, pursuant to which the present crime came to be registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that the complaint neither mentions the petitioner's name nor attributes any overt act to him. According to the learned counsel, the allegations do not disclose that the petitioner impersonated a police officer, assaulted or threatened the de facto complainant, or extorted any money from him. It is further submitted that the prosecution case itself indicates that the petitioner was not physically

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 10625 of 2026

present at the scene of occurrence and that his implication is based solely on the alleged confession statement of a co-accused, which has no evidentiary value. Learned counsel further submits that there is no material to show that the petitioner derived any financial benefit from the alleged offence or that any incriminating material was recovered from his possession. It is also contended that the petitioner is a permanent resident with deep roots in society and, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. The petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. It is further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, placing reliance on the petitioner's right to personal liberty, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the material collected during the investigation, thus far, prima facie discloses a conspiracy among the petitioner and the other accused to impersonate Task Force Police Officers and extort money from innocent persons. It is submitted that the allegations in the complaint are specific and reveal that all the accused acted in concert. According to the prosecution, Accused No.1 initially contacted the de facto complainant, and on the date of the occurrence, Accused Nos.2 and 3 intercepted him by posing as Task Force Police Officers and compelled him to transfer money to the account of

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 10625 of 2026

Accused No.4. Thereafter, Accused Nos.4 and 5 allegedly joined them, threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences, forcibly took his ICICI Bank credit card, and made unauthorized transactions using the said card. Insofar as the present petitioner (Accused No.6) is concerned, it is submitted that he was acquainted with Accused No.1 and was a common friend of the other accused. Though he was not physically present at the scene of offence during the occurrence, he allegedly instructed the other accused to assemble near D-Mart. It is further submitted that the investigation is still at a nascent stage and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for an effective and comprehensive investigation. Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the material placed on record.

8. The prosecution case is that all the accused, acting in collusion and by impersonating themselves as Task Force Police Officers, threatened the de facto complainant and, under such threat, abused, assaulted, and extorted money from him. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he was the person who allegedly instructed the other accused to assemble at the place of occurrence. However, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was not physically present at the scene of the offence. Except for the allegation that the petitioner (Accused No.6) asked the other accused to

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 10625 of 2026

assemble at the place of occurrence, there is no allegation indicating that he directly participated in the commission of the offence. Additionally, there is no material to indicate that the petitioner had planned the manner of commission of the offence or that the occurrence took place pursuant to his instructions.

9. It is a settled proposition of law that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to take into account, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the likelihood of the accused being available for the judicial process, the possibility of his interfering with the investigation or influencing witnesses, and the necessity of custodial interrogation. The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary jurisdiction intended to safeguard personal liberty and must be exercised with due care, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an arrest should not be made merely because it is lawful to do so and emphasized that personal liberty occupies a paramount position within the constitutional framework. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that custodial interrogation must be shown to be genuinely necessary in the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 10625 of 2026

10. Having regard to the factual matrix of the case, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the petitioner's unequivocal willingness to cooperate with the investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case warranting favourable consideration of his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, however, subject to appropriate conditions.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions: (A) The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Amberpet Police Station, Hyderabad City, on or before 07.08.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest, the Station House Officer shall release the petitioner/Accused No.6 on bail on execution of personal bonds 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/Accused No.6 shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday and Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of his release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 10625 of 2026

(C) The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not leave India without obtaining prior permission from the jurisdictional Court concerned. (D) The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall furnish his complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein. (E) The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall he tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (F) The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (G) Any willful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioners liable to appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional Court, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable laws.

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. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J

Date: 24.07.2026 svl