CRLP/9436/2026 of hYalala Appareddy alias Srikanth Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana on 9 July 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharotigo Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), seeking the relief of anticipator)' bail.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3 in FIR No.65 of 2026 on the file of Nawabpet Police Station, Vikarabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 180(3), 180(4), 19- (2), 191(3), 329(4\, 332(b), 324, 352, 351(2) read with 109 of Bhoratiga Ngaga Sanhitha, 2O23(for short, "BNS") and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 2(v)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SC/ ST Act").

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mohammed, iearned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent- State. \..

-E

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02 06 2026 at about 06:30 A.M., upon hearing loud cries and commotion outside his residence, the de facto complainant came out of his house and noticed certain villagers assembled there, allegedly armed with sticks and iron rods. Apprehending trouble, when the complainant returned inside his house, petitioner/ accused No.3, along with the other accused persons, allegedly trespassed into the complainant's house with an intention to assault him. It is further alleged that the accused persons hurled abuses by referring to his caste, threatened him, and caused damage to the window glasses and CCTV camera installed at his residence, thereby causing loss to the properfy* estimated at approxinlately Rs.5O,O00/-. Based on the report lodged by the de facto complainant, the present crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to previous disputes existing between the parties. Learned counsel further submits that, in fact, on O1.06.2026, the father of accused No' 1 and accused Nos.8 and 9 were assaulted by the complainant's side, resulting in grievous injuries, for which they underwent medical treatment, and a counter report was also lodged regarding the said incident. It is submitted that the present complaint is- nothing but a counterblast to the earlier incident and has been instituted with an ulterior motive. It is \ further submitted that there are longstanding land disputes tretlveen the 3!'='!',::5E:sr_ettr,'

complainant and the mother of accused No.1, and a c vil suit concerning the said dispute is also pending adjudication before the (rornPetent Cou.rt.

5.2. Learned counsel contends that the allegations levelled against the petrtioner are general, vague, omnibus in nature, and (1o not disclose any specific overt act attributable to him warranting custodial interrogation. He further pleads that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigating agency and abide by any condition imposed by this Court. Thus seeks protection from arrest by grant of anticipatory bail or, alternatively, issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNS.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that the allegations containe d in the complaint disclose the active involvement of the petitioner along with other accused persons. It 1s submitted that there are specific allegatrons that the accused persons entered into the complainant's house, abused him by referring to his caste identity, and caused damage to his property. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the investigation is still in progress and granting anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper the effective conduct of investigation. 7 . I have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.

8. A perusal of the complaint reveals that the allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with the other accused persotts, entered into the house of the de faclo complainant, abused by referring to t-,1" .r"t., ,.,i -r- caused damage to the property including CCTV equiprnent. On the other hand, the petitioner asserts that he has been falsely implicated due to prior disputes between the parties and also relies upon the existence of a counter case arising out ofal earlier incident.

9. At this stage, expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations would be pre mature ald the Court is required to balance the necessity of a fair investigation with the right to personal liberty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharth u. State of Uttar Pradesh, (20221 I SCC 676, reiterated that arrest is not mandatory merely because an offence has been registered, and unless custodial interrogation is necessary or there exists a possibilify- of the accused absconding or interfering with the investigation, deprivation of libertl should be avoided.

10. In view of the foregoing circumstances, having regard to the nature of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, the applicability of Section 332(b) of the BNS, the fact that the other alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, and particuiarly considering the petitione r's undertaking to cooperate with the investigation and compiy with the lawful directions of the Investigating Ofhcer, this Court is of the considered opinion that, while leaving all issues open for consideration during the course of investigation, extending the statutory safeguard contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, would be just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.

.$

tlIF'_FPrr!!lFrF- ? 4+'*P

11. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Nawabpet Police Station, Vikarabad, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such appearance, the Investigating Officer sha11 issue a notice to the petitioner under Section 35(3) of the BNSS in connection with FIR No.65 of 2026 and sha11 thereafter proceed strictly in accordance with law, duly adhering to the principles and guideiines enunciated by the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar u. Stote of Bihar, (2014\ 8 SCC 273. The petitioner shall, in turn, extend full cooperation to the Investigating Officer during the courst: of investigation.

12. With this direction, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/- T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Station House Officer, Police Station, Nawabpet, Vikarabad

2. One CC to Sri. Gajanand Chakravarthi, Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies EPR/KA @- L9

HIGH COURT DATED: 0910712026

ORDER

GRLP.No.9436 of 2026 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF 1\iE. i',.': / - Lr'r ,4 it..: 1 5 Lut zozs I .i: c @ t &