Shaik Fathima & Anr. vs State Of Telangana

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

The petitioners are arrayed as the accused Nos.6 and 8 in FIR No.216 of 2026 on the file of Bhongir Rural Police Station, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109 read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr.M.Rathan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that, against the backdrop of disputes concerning the occupation of Government land and objections allegedly raised by the villagers, the petitioners, along with the other accused, formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the victims with axes and shovels with the intention of committing murder, thereby causing injuries to three persons. Consequently, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case without any material establishing their involvement. It was contended that none of the prosecution material discloses any meeting of minds among the accused to commit the alleged offences, particularly when no specific overt acts have been attributed to the petitioners. It was further submitted that petitioner No. 1 is a woman and petitioner No. 2 is an elderly person, rendering the allegations regarding their involvement inherently improbable. Learned counsel also submitted that accused Nos. 1 to 7 have already been arrested; however, the investigating agency has not required their custodial interrogation, which indicates that the custodial interrogation of the present petitioners is likewise unnecessary. It was further submitted that the petitioners are willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it was prayed that the petitioners be granted anticipatory bail.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application, contending that, there is specific case against the petitioners. It was further submitted that one of the injured sustained a head injury, while the other two suffered injuries to their waist region. The injured person who sustained the head injury is stated to be in a critical condition. It was argued that the custodial presence of the petitioners is necessary for the recovery of the weapons allegedly used in the commission of the offence and for eliciting the circumstances relating to the incident, including the specific role allegedly played by each of them. It was further submitted that, although seven witnesses have been examined thus far, the petitioners' presence remains necessary for completing the investigation. Accordingly, it was prayed that the application be dismissed.

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

The allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioners were members of an unlawful assembly and, armed with deadly weapons, assaulted the victims with the intention of causing their death. On the other hand, the defence of the petitioners is that they were never part of the alleged incident and have been falsely implicated. It is further contended that, apart from a general allegation regarding their presence, the prosecution material does not attribute any specific overt act or individual role to either of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences.

At the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the truthfulness or otherwise of the rival allegations, nor is it required to conduct a mini-trial by appreciating the evidentiary value of the material collected during the investigation. The jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS is discretionary and is to be exercised upon a judicious consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court is primarily required to examine factors such as the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, the likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and whether custodial interrogation is indispensable for the purposes of a fair and effective investigation. These principles stand authoritatively enunciated by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, and have been consistently reiterated in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1.

By the record, it is evident that certain witnesses have referred to the presence of the petitioners at the scene of occurrence. However, no specific overt act has been attributed to either of them. The prosecution material, at this stage, merely contains a general allegation of their participation in the unlawful assembly. Whether the petitioners were, in fact, members of the alleged unlawful assembly within the meaning of Section 189 of the BNS, whether they shared the common object of the assembly, and whether they actively participated in the assault or caused injuries to the victims are all matters that require thorough investigation and are ultimately to be determined during trial on the basis of legally admissible evidence.

Undoubtedly, the allegations relate to serious offences involving assault with deadly weapons, and the gravity of the accusation cannot be lightly ignored. Nevertheless, the seriousness of the offence, by itself, cannot constitute the sole ground for denying the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. The Court must strike a balance between the societal interest in ensuring a fair investigation and the fundamental right to personal liberty. As consistently held by the Supreme Court, deprivation of liberty must be justified by a demonstrable necessity and not merely by the gravity of the allegations.

In the present case, the material presently available does not disclose any specific or direct act attributable to the petitioners. Both petitioners are permanent residents, and there is nothing on record to indicate that they are likely to abscond, evade the process of law, influence prosecution witnesses, or tamper with the evidence. They have also unequivocally expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation and to comply with any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Furthermore, the prosecution has not placed any convincing material to demonstrate that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is indispensable for the purpose of an effective investigation or for the recovery of any incriminating material.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, and bearing in mind the settled principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a fit case for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail, subject to such reasonable conditions to ensure their availability during the course of the proceedings, and to safeguard the interests of justice.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions.

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.