The High Court · 2025

Grounds of Criminal Petltion and upon hearing the arguments of Sri CH.VENKAT REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner, Sri D.Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and of Sri Kavadi Naresh, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.16055 OF 2o25

29.L2.2025 Between : Rakesh Yadav & t',r,o others Petitioners/A. I to A.3 And The State of Telangana, Through SHO, P.S.Neredmet, Rachakonda Commissionerate & another . .. Respondenis : ORDER: This criminal petition is hled under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioners/A. 1 to A.3 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.695 of Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 118(1), 351(2), 352 r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and thereafter the section of law was altered to Section 1O9(i), 1 15(2), 351(2), 352 r/w.3(5), 223(al, 28O, 292,293 of Bharatiya 2 N1,aya Sarrhita, 2023 and under Section 3(lO) of Telangana Tor,r,n Nuisance Act.

2. 'fhe facts of thc case zrrc that on 08.O9.2O25 at about 9:00 PM, I he complainan t along with his brothers Hari Krishna, Uday, Nikesh, and Harshith attended a Ganesh procession. During the event, Harshith accidentally touched the sound system, q,hich led to a group of individuals surrounding and verbally abusing the complainant. The si[uation was briefly calmed by others prcsent. Thereafter, the complainant and his group returned to their colony. However, Rakesh Yadav, Manoj Yadav, RK Puram Sai, and two others, who held a grudge, followed them in an intoxicated state, threatened them and phvsicallv attacked the group using iron rods (goal posts). Hari I{rishna, rvho tried to intervenc, was specificaily targeted and he sustained a serious head injury, causing him to lose consciousness. He was immediately taken to the hospital for treatment. Hence, the complainant requested the police to take necessary action against the accused basing on which police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Ch.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional hrblic 3 Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and Sri Kavadi Naresh, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. The contcntion of lcarncd counsel for the petitioners is that there is clelay in loclging the complaint and the same is not explained. Initially the case was registered for the offences under sections 118(l), 35i (2), 353 r/w.3(5) of BNS and at the instance of complainant the sections were altered to Sections 1O9(1), 115(2),351(2),352 r/w.3(s) of BNS and added 223(al, 2aO,292, 293 ol BNS and Section 15 of Environment Act and Section 2l/76 of CP Act and Section 3(1) of Telangana Town Nuisance Act. The petitioners are falsely implicated in this case. Further material part of investigation is already completed and petitioners shall abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. As such, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the 2"d respondent filed a counter, stating that the delay in lodging the complaint was due to the complainant's brother being seriously injured and admitted to the ICU. The petitioners allegedly attacked the complainant's brother with an iron rod, intending to kill him. The injury was severe and potentialty tife-threatening. A CT scan of the brain revealed a clot, and the victim is still 4 undergoing treatment, It is lurther alleged that the petitioners are habitual offenders and are also accused in S.C. No.2l5 of 2022, which is pending before the Vl Additional Metropolitan Maqistrate, Hyderabarl. Additionally, the petitioners, along with ten others, allegedly went to the complainant's house and threatened him with clire consequences if he did not withdraw the case. The complainant immediately called the police helpline (Dial 1OO), ernd although the police patrol arrived and the accused fled, no arrests were made. The petitioners are said to be influential individtrals who are evading arrest. Granting them anticipatory bail poscs a threat to the complainant's life and may obstruct the ongoing investigation. Therefore, prayed this Court lo dismiss this bail petition. 6'. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground that the injured received grievous injuries and investigation is not yet completed. Further A. 1 and A.2 are also involved in other crime. If bail is granted there is every chance of petitioners threatening the witnesses. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss this petition. 7 . Upon considering the submissions of both learned counsel and examining the material on record, the main contention of the petitioners is that the injury certificate I describes the injuries as simple, and therefore, Section I O9 of the BNS is not applicable. However, despite the certificate stating "simple injury," the injured sustained a deep laceration on the front tcmporal region of the head, caused by an iron rod. This indicates a clcar intention of the petitioners to causc serious harm, possiblv even to kill. The victim is still undergoing treatment, and the classification of the injury as "simple" alone is not sufficient ground to grant bail. Moreover, the fact that the injury was inflicted on a vital part of the body supports the applicability of Section 1O9 of the BNS. The petitioners also have a prior criminal history. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed Sd/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ST'GIT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/i I SECTION OFFICER To, I {e 1 . The ll Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum- Additional MetroPolitan Sessions Judge-Cum- ll Special sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases Relating to the Atrocities against women-Cum-FamilY Cou rt, Medchal- Malkajgiri'

2. The Station House Officer' Neredment Police S'tation'Rachakonda' 3. Two CCs to the Public p"jt""'i"t' ffign Court for the State of Telangana at 4 '#;'d;5Rl iu. vEnxnr REDDY Advocale-lo.Ifc] ; ;.;;c i;JRirnvnorNARESH' Advocate toPucl 6. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad [OUT] HIGH COURT DATED:2911212025 ORDER CRLP.No.16055 of 2025 SIA ? B JAil zOM ? c'. C) ,J .( * DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION o