SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 203

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J.
Sri. Sai Reddy Mahender Reddy Thota Mahendar Reddy - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Petition No.6549 Of 2025
Decided On : 21-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K KARUNAKAR
For the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Anticipatory bail is not granted when serious allegations exist and the investigation is ongoing, to prevent interference.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 - Section 482 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 - Sections 105, 318(4) and 3(5) - Anticipatory bail sought for the petitioner/accused No.1 in a case involving allegations of cheque dishonor and assault - The petitioner contends that the allegations are false and civil in nature, asserting that the complainant's medical condition contributed to his collapse - The prosecution argues serious allegations exist and the investigation is ongoing. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted when serious allegations are present and the investigation is still in progress, as it may lead to interference with the investigation. (Paras 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner/accused No.1 is accused of issuing a dishonored cheque for rice purchased worth Rs.2,60,000/- and allegedly assaulting the complainant's brother, leading to hospitalization.

Findings of Court:
The court found serious allegations against the petitioner and noted the ongoing investigation, concluding that anticipatory bail was not warranted.

Issues: The main issues included the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and whether anticipatory bail should be granted given the ongoing investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that anticipatory bail is not appropriate when serious allegations are present and the investigation is ongoing, as it could compromise the investigation.

Result: Criminal Petition dismissed.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.326 of 2025 on the file of the Station House Officer, Alwal Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 105, 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.03.2025, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner/accused No.1 and others alleging that petitioner/accused No.1 purchased rice worth Rs.2,60,000/- from de-facto complainant’s elder brother and issued a cheque for the said amount. When the cheque was presented in the bank for encashment, the same was returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. Subsequently, the de-facto complainant along with his brother went to the residence of the petitioner/accused No.1 to seek clarification about the payment. During the course of conversation, the petitioner, along with his wife and son (accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively), allegedly abused them. It is further alleged that petitioner/accused No.1 pushed the de-facto complainant’s elder brother, resulting which he fell down and lose his consciousness. The injured was taken to the Hospital, where the Doctors declared his condition as critical. Hence, the complaint.

3. Heard Sri K. Karunakar, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not involved in the said offence and he has been falsely implicated in the crime, which is purely civil nature. The allegation is that petitioner/accused No.1 purchased rice worth Rs.2,60,000/- and issued a post-dated cheque in discharge of the said liability is incorrect. Although it is alleged that the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds, the proper and efficacious remedy is available to the de-facto complainant to issue notice to the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. However, instead of initiating proceedings as per the statutory provisions, the de-facto complainant along with his brother unlawfully trespassed into the residential premises of the petitioner/accused No.1. It is further submitted that the de-facto complainant is a chronic patient of hypertension and he had been under medical care and he was hospitalized just a month before the alleged incident. Therefore, any claim of collapse or unconsciousness on the said date appears to be a consequence of his pre-existing medical condition and cannot be attributed to any assault by the petitioner/accused No.1. Further, there are no specific overt-acts attributed against accused Nos.2 and 3, petitioner/accused No.1 has no intention or mens rea to commit the offence and he has permanent abode in Hyderabad. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.1.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioner/accused No.1 and he filed Crl. M.P. No. 187 of 2025 in Crime No.326 of 2025 on the file of II Additional District and Session Judge-cum-I Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri and the same was dismissed vide order, dated 02.05.2025 as the investigation was yet to be completed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it is revealed that there are serious allegations levelled against petitioner/accused No.1 and the investigation is still in progress. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.1 at this stage, especial

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top