Anticipatory bail may be denied in cases of serious assault causing grievous injuries, particularly when the application is a repetitive filing without any significant change in circumstances since previous dismissals.

: ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/A.1 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.202 of 2026 of Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 137(2), 109 r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The facts of the case are that on 03.02.2026 at about 02:00 hours, the statement of the complainant, Chinthala Vikram Kumar, was recorded at AIG Hospital, Gachibowli, wherein he alleged that due to prior family disputes, his wife had been living separately. On 02.02.2026, she along with her relatives allegedly demanded transfer of property and, upon refusal, threatened him. Later the same day, the petitioner (his brother-in-law) along with others allegedly assaulted him, forcibly took him to another location, and assaulted him again, causing injuries. Thereafter, he was admitted to the hospital, and based on his complaint, a case was registered against the accused for the said offences.

3. Heard Sri L.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated, and that he has no criminal antecedents. It is contended that petitioner was neither present nor participated in the alleged incident, and that the case arises out of long-standing matrimonial disputes between the de facto complainant and A.6, who is the petitioner’s sister. It is further submitted that, in fact, the complainant had earlier assaulted A.6, causing serious injuries, and has falsely implicated the petitioner and his family members to escape liability. The learned counsel submits that other accused have already been granted bail, and the investigation has been completed with examination of witnesses, thereby rendering custodial interrogation of the petitioner unnecessary. It is also contended that the complainant did not sustain any serious injuries as alleged and was discharged from the hospital within hours. The petitioner is stated to be a small businessman, the sole caretaker of his family including minor children, aged mother, and dependents, and is suffering from serious liver-related ailments requiring continuous medical care. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the petitioner, along with the other accused, had severely assaulted the de facto complainant with an intention to kill him. The complainant sustained multiple injuries on his head, face, chest, back, and legs in the said assault. However investigation is still pending, if anticipatory bail is granted, there is a likelihood that the petitioner may not cooperate with the investigation. In view of the gravity of the allegations and the stage of investigation, petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Considering the rival submissions and the material available on record, this is the third bail application and the earlier bail applications were dismissed on merits. In the present application, no new or changed circumstances have been placed before this Court warranting reconsideration of the earlier order. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as the victim sustained grievous injuries in the assault committed by the accused. Further release of o