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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 14301

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Mangalikuntla Venuvardhan Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION, 7478 and 7479 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.C.Haripreeth
For the Respondents: Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon

Court assessed bail requests considering severity of allegations and personal circumstances of accused, denying one bail while granting it to another.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 - Section 482 - Anticipatory bail - The petitioners sought bail under the BNSS in a case alleging grievous bodily harm and domestic dispute regarding property - The court denied bail to accused No.2 but granted it to accused No.3 due to her circumstances as a housewife. (Paras 8, 9)

(B) Anticipatory bail - Conditions - The petitioner is required to surrender before police, not to interfere with investigation, and cooperate with authorities. (Paras 1, 3)

Facts of the case:
The petition was filed for anticipatory bail by accused Nos. 2 and 3 in a domestic violence case involving familial disputes over land and allegations of grievous bodily harm recorded in a police complaint and medical certificate.

Findings of Court:
The court found specific allegations against accused No.2, warranting denial of bail, while recognizing the situation of accused No.3, leading to the grant of bail under specified conditions.

Issues: The court addressed the legitimacy of the allegations against the petitioners and the appropriateness of bail based on the nature of offences and circumstances of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that while the allegations against accused No.2 warranted a denial of bail due to ongoing investigations, the court granted bail to accused No.3 based on her personal situation, emphasizing that bail should consider the context of family and gender.

Result: Criminal Petition No.7478 of 2025 is allowed; Criminal Petition No.7479 of 2025 is dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Criminal Revision Petition No. _ of 2025

In the matter of: A revision under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (BNSS), filed by the State of Karnataka [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] challenging the Bail Order dated _ passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, [Name of District], in Criminal Case No. _ of 2025.

Versus

M/s. [Name of Accused/Defendant], S/o [Father's Name], R/o [Address], [City/District] – Petitioner/Accused


RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. Introduction That the present Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the BNSS") seeking to quash the impugned Bail Order (!) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the under-mentioned case: * Case No: Criminal Case No. _ of 2025 * Police Station: [Name of Police Station] * District: [District Name] * Offences: Offences punishable under Section [Insert Section Numbers] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (BNS) (!) .

2. Facts of the Case 2.1. The facts of the case are that on [Date of Incident], a registered complaint was lodged against the Petitioner alleging grievous bodily harm and assault (!) . The prosecution case reveals that the victim sustained severe injuries, including three grievous injuries, as corroborated by the medical certificate issued by [Name of Hospital] dated [Date] (!) .

2.2. The incident occurred amidst a dispute regarding property/land admeasuring [Area], where the accused allegedly assaulted the complainant using weapons such as a hoe and sticks (!) . The nature of the allegations involves serious violence resulting in grievous hurt, attracting stringent provisions of the penal law (!) .

3. The Impugned Bail Order 3.1. Despite the gravity of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, the learned Judicial Magistrate granted bail to the accused in Criminal Case No. _ of 2025 (!) . In doing so, the Court relied on the circumstances of the accused, noting their lack of criminal antecedents and willingness to cooperate (!) .

3.2. The impugned order was passed under Section 482 of the BNSS (!) , granting bail subject to conditions such as surrender before the Station House Officer and execution of a personal bond (!) . The Court also directed the accused not to influence witnesses or interfere with the investigation (!) .

4. Grounds for Revision 4.1. Perversity and Error of Law: The impugned Bail Order is perverse and erroneous in law. The allegations against the accused are specific and serious, involving grievous bodily harm (!) . Granting bail at this stage, while the investigation is still in progress, creates a high probability of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses (!) .

4.2. Severity of Offence: The offences alleged are of a heinous nature. The medical evidence confirms that the victim suffered grievous injuries (!) . The Court below failed to adequately weigh the severity of the allegations and the potential impact on the investigation process (!) .

4.3. Public Interest: It is in the public interest to ensure that a criminal who has allegedly caused grievous harm does not remain at large during the pendency of the investigation. The grant of bail undermines the faith of the public in the administration of justice (!) .

4.4. Misappreciation of Evidence: The Court below placed undue emphasis on the accused's willingness to cooperate (!) while ignoring the specific and grave nature of the assault described in the police complaint and supported by medical evidence (!) . The distinction made between civil disputes and criminal assault was not upheld in the bail order (!) .

5. Prayer In view of the foregoing facts and grounds, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: a) Allow this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS; b) Set aside and quash the impugned Bail Order dated _ passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate; c) Direct the learned Judicial Magistrate to reject the bail application or impose stricter conditions, including the surrender of the accused immediately; and d) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Place: Bangalore Date: [Date]

Advocate for the State [Name of Advocate] [Enrollment Number] [Address]


CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned, certify that I have gone through the grounds of this petition and that the same are of legal importance and involve a question of law of general public importance.

Advocate for the State


Table of Content
1. criminal petitions are filed seeking anticipatory bail. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. petitioners denying involvement; prosecution detailing grievous assault. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court analyzes evidence and circumstances before deciding bail. (Para 7 , 8)
4. court issues separate rulings on each petition for bail. (Para 9)

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7478 and 7479 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

Since these criminal petitions are arising out of Crime No.48 of

2025, these criminal petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.48 of 2025 on the file of Nawabpet Police Station, Vikarabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 118(2) and 127(2) r/w 3(5)

of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.04.2025 at 1100 hours, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint in which he stated that he has a son and a daughter, both married. His son frequently quarreled with him, demanding that he register 21 guntas of land, currently in the complainant’s name, to him and repay the bank loan of Rs.30,000/- on the land. On 02.03.2025 at about 10 PM, his son, along with son-in-law and daughter-in-law, assaulted him while he was sleeping. They beat him with a hoe and sticks, and daughter-in-law threw chili powder and water on him. As he tried to wipe it off, they continued beating him, causing severe bleeding injuries, and then locked him inside the house. The next morning, his mother opened the door and found him in this state. Basing on the same, present crime was registered.

4. Heard Mr.C.Haripreeth, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have not committed alleged offences and they were falsely implicated in the said crime. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in nature, relating to the land admeasuring Ac.0.21 gts. The dispute arose when accused No.1 requested the de- facto complainant to register the said land in his name, and upon refusal, a quarrel developed between accused No.1 and the de-facto complainant. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners to attract the ingredients of Section 118(2) of the BNS. He further submitted that initially the crime was registered for the offence under Sections 118(1), 127(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS and the punishment prescribed for the said offences is upto seven years and later the police altered the section of law into Section 118(2) of BNS, to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of BNSS. He further submitted that the petitioners are not having any criminal antecedents and they are ready to cooperate with the investigation and also ready to abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court and hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner, along with accused No.1, has committed a grave offence, and the victim sustained grievous injuries at their hands and there are specific allegations against them to attract the ingredients of Section 118(2) of BNS and the investigation is under progress. Therefore, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, at this stage, there is every chance to influence the witnesses and to interfere with the investigation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the de-facto complainant is the husband of accused No.3, father-in- law of accused No.2 and father of accused No.1. The record further revea

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