CRLP/10425/2026 of Markanti Yellaiah, Vs The State of Telangana on 22 July 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.1 in Crime No.116 of 2026 on the file of Chinnakodur police station, Siddipet District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 118(2), 115(2), 329(3), 324(3), 352 read with Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr. Ram Prasad Teegala, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4.1. The facts, in brief, are that on 18.05.2026, at about 11:15 a.m., the petitioner/Accused No.1, along with his wife and sons (Accused Nos.2 to 4), allegedly came to the agricultural land of the de facto complainant in a JCB bearing Registration No. TS 12 ER 4113 and criminally trespassed into the said land. It is alleged that they attempted to create a field road/bund by using the JCB. Upon receiving information from the villagers, the de facto complainant, along with his parents and younger brother, reached the land and questioned the accused regarding the damage caused.

4.2. It is further alleged that all the accused abused the complainant and his family members in filthy language and physically assaulted them. The specific allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.1 is that he assaulted the de facto complainant with a stick. It is further alleged that Accused No.4 attempted to stab the de facto complainant with a knife and, while the latter attempted to ward off the attack, he sustained an injury to his left hand. It is also alleged that Accused No.3 assaulted the father of the de facto complainant with an iron rod on his stomach, back, and head, resulting in bleeding injuries. Based on the aforesaid allegations, the present crime came to be registered. Though the FIR initially invoked Section 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), upon the Medical Officer opining that the injuries were grievous in nature, the offence was altered to Section 118(2) of the BNS.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated owing to previous disputes and personal animosity, and that the present criminal case is a misuse of the criminal process intended to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a private dispute. It is contended that the allegations against the petitioner are omnibus and vague and do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. It is further submitted that, although the prosecution has invoked Section 3(5) of the BNS, there is no material to establish any prior meeting of minds or common intention among the accused. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations relating to the use of a knife and an iron rod are specifically attributed to Accused Nos.4 and 3, respectively, whereas the allegation against the petitioner is confined to assaulting the injured with a stick, which, by itself, does not justify the invocation of the principle of common intention.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident, an agriculturist by occupation, has deep roots in society, and has no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the investigation has substantially progressed. Learned counsel also points out that Accused No.3 has already been granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court. It is contended that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no longer necessary. Nevertheless, the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and contended that the petitioner, being Accused No.1, actively participated in the commission of the alleged offences. It is submitted that the allegations relating to criminal trespass into the agricultural land of the de facto complainant, damage to the field, and the assault on the de facto complainant and his family members are supported by the evidence and other material collected during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that the Medical Officer has opined that the injuries sustained by the father of the de facto complainant are grievous in nature, pursuant to which the relevant penal provision has been altered. The learned Additional

Public Prosecutor further contends that the investigation is still in progress and that, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood that he may not cooperate with the investigation. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the anticipatory bail application be dismissed.

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

8. The material available on record discloses that the petitioner/Accused No.1 is alleged to have assaulted the father of the de facto complainant with a stick, whereas the specific allegations regarding the use of a knife and an iron rod are attributed to Accused Nos.4 and 3, respectively. It is also evident that the investigation has substantially progressed. The material witnesses have been examined, the alleged weapons have been seized, and the relevant medical evidence has been collected. Based on the medical opinion that the father of the de facto complainant sustained grievous injuries, the offence has been altered by invoking Section 118(2) of the BNS.

9. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. It is also an admitted fact that Accused No.3, against whom a graver overt act of assault with an iron rod resulting in grievous injuries is specifically alleged, has already been granted anticipatory bail. The objection that petitioner may not cooperate with the investigation is not supported by any convincing material, and no specific aspect has been placed before this Court to indicate that the petitioner would evade the investigation, influence witnesses, or tamper with the evidence. It is well settled that the grant of anticipatory bail is to be considered with reference to the necessity for custodial interrogation, and such necessity must be demonstrated from the facts and circumstances of each case. Though the principle of parity is not by itself determinative of the grant of anticipatory bail, it nevertheless constitutes a relevant factor for consideration, particularly when the co-accused, against whom a graver role is attributed, has already been granted the said relief.

10. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein it was held that the Court is required to strike a balance between an individual's right to personal liberty and the interest of a fair and effective investigation. Likewise, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against unnecessary arrests and held that arrest should not be made in a routine manner merely because the alleged offence is cognizable and non-bailable.

11. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, the absence of any criminal antecedents on the part of the petitioner, the completion of substantial investigative steps, the availability of the documentary and medical evidence with the investigating agency, and the settled principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, and in the absence of any compelling circumstance necessitating the custodial interrogation of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail deserves to be favourably considered. However, such relief shall be subject to conditions to adequately safeguard the interests of the prosecution.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:

a) Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Chinnakodur police station, Siddipet District, on or before 05.08.2026. Upon such surrender, or in the event of their arrest, the Station House Officer shall release them on bail upon each of them executing 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 petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer every Monday and Thursday between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. for a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of their release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects.

c) The petitioner shall furnish their complete residential addresses and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the proceedings before the trial court.

d) The petitioner shall neither directly nor indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall they tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

e) In addition, the petitioner shall abide by the conditions contemplated under section 438(2) of BNSS.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 22.07.2026 MRKR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10425 OF 2026

DATE: 22.07.2026

MRKR