CRLP/10019/2026 of Nanneboina. Uday Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana, on 3 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 sole accused in FIR No.238 of 2026 on the file of Paloncha Town Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(2) of BNS.

3. Heard Mr.S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mahmood, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

4.1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 19.06.2026 alleging that on 28.05.2026 at about 18:30 hours, near Karim Kirana Shop, the petitioner, without any provocation, picked up a quarrel with her husband, assaulted him, caused a severe injury on his head, abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. It is further alleged that immediately after the incident, the injured was shifted to the hospital, where he underwent treatment for a period of about sixteen (16) days. Based on the said complaint, the present crime came to be registered.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are baseless, exaggerated and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that there is an unexplained delay of more than twenty-one (21) days in lodging the complaint, which creates a serious doubt regarding the prosecution version. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is an engineering student pursuing his studies at Kothagudem and, therefore, his presence at Paloncha at the alleged time of occurrence is highly improbable. It is also contended that the injuries sustained by the injured were not caused by any assault by the petitioner, but occurred due to an accidental fall while the injured was under the influence of alcohol. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has no intention of evading the process of law, is willing to cooperate with the investigation, and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending that the allegations made against the petitioner are grave and specific in nature. It is submitted that the husband of the de facto complainant sustained a serious head injury, requiring hospitalization and treatment for about sixteen (16) days. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that considering the nature of the accusation, the gravity of the injuries and the necessity of securing the petitioner’s presence for effective investigation, grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may adversely affect the investigation. It is also apprehended that, if enlarged on anticipatory bail, the petitioner may not cooperate with the investigating agency, thereby causing prejudice to the prosecution case.

Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the application.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.

7. It is evident from the record that the allegations made in the complaint are directed specifically against the petitioner. The medical record produced by the prosecution also indicates that the injured sustained a head injury and underwent treatment for approximately sixteen (16) days. However, a careful examination of the medical record placed before this Court indicates that the injuries were recorded as having been sustained in a road traffic accident. This aspect, prima facie, creates a circumstance which requires further investigation regarding the exact manner in which the injuries were caused.

8. At this stage, it is necessary to observe that while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence or record findings touching upon the merits of the case. The consideration is limited to examining the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the necessity of custodial interrogation, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, and the possibility of interference with the investigation.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary but important safeguard intended to protect personal liberty, and that no rigid formula can be applied while exercising such discretion. Similarly, in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench emphasized that the grant of anticipatory bail must be determined based on the facts and circumstances of each case while balancing individual liberty and the requirements of investigation.

10. In the present case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations and leaving all aspects open for investigation, this Court takes into consideration the delay in lodging the complaint, the contents of the medical record, the fact that the petitioner is a student, his undertaking to cooperate with the investigation, and the absence of any specific material placed before this Court demonstrating the necessity of custodial interrogation and keeping in mind the settled principles governing grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner’s request for grant of anticipatory bail deserves favourable consideration, subject to imposition of appropriate conditions to secure his availability for investigation, and ensure that the investigation proceeds in a fair and unhindered manner.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the petitioner shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Paloncha Town Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem on or before 17.07.2026. 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) each, 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 Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of twelve

(12) 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: 03.07.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10019 OF 2026

DATE : 03.07.2026

CHS