Dismissed¶34

Manjal Sai Kumar v. the State of Telangana

Anticipatory bail – Section 528 BNSS

Telangana HC8 Sept 2025CRLP/10548/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, Criminal Petition No. 10548 of 2025, decided 08.09.2025 by Smt. Justice K. Sujana. Anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 528 BNSS sought by Manjal Sai Kumar (A1) in Crime No. 410 of 2025, Banjara Hills PS, FIR dated 12.05.2025; offences incl. Section 109(1) BNS referred to by counsel; knife attack on Sai Ram; investigation incomplete; custodial interrogation not found necessary but bail refused on severity of allegations; co-accused bail orders Crl.M.P.Nos. 3439 & 3440 of 2025 and Crl.P.No. 7175 of 2025 noted. Petition dismissed; no costs/amounts.

What did the court decide?

The investigation in Crime No. 410 of 2025 had not yet been completed, and at that stage it could not be said that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary. ¶33

Manjal Sai Kumar Vs the State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10548 OF ZO2S

¶7

Between:

¶8

Manjal Sai Kumar, S/o M.anjal Nagendra, aged about 28 years, Occ.Business, R/o. 8-2-2931501A. Sri Venkateshwara Nagar Road No. 14 Banaiara hills, Hyderabad

¶9

Petitioner/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

The State Of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad

¶12

...Respondent

¶13

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandurn of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge on the petitioner/A1 on anticipatory bail in th6 event of his arrest in connection with P.S. FIR No 41Ot2025 on the iile of the pS. BanajaraHills, Hyderabad, dated. 12.0s.2025 during the pendency of inquiry ,nd trirt.

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M. Durga Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent-state.

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1OS48 of 2O2S

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

Ttris criminal Petition is filed under Section 4g2 of Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short tsNSSJ for grant of prearrest b:lil to the pe:titioner, who is arrayed as accused in crime No.41o of 2025 of Banjara Hills police Station, Hyderabad.

¶21

Thr: brief facts of the case are that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint on L2.os.2o25 against the petitioner stating that on the same day around 4:15 a.m., he along with his brotherin-law sai Ram went to a tea shop at Krishna Nagar, Hyderabad, which was closed, and then went to a nearby pan shop to buy cigarettes. while returning home, they noticed three persons blocking the road with their bikes. After asking them to remove the bikes, the complainant. went home, where Sai Ram called his friend Naga, and they sat on the platform of their house. At about 4:45 o.ffi., six pt:rsons, who earlier blocked the road, came on two bikes, claimed to be followers of Arjun yadav, picked up a quarrel, and attacked sai Ram with a knife, causing bleeding injuries on his chin and ri6;ht hand.

¶22

¶23

li ll ii li li ii ir iill:l li ii ll rl i

¶24

¶25

sKsJ Crl. P.l{o.10!i48 of 2025

¶26

Heard Sri M.Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent -^State.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR was originally registered against unknown persons, and the petitioner was fatsely implicated only on the basis of the confessional statements of co-accused A2 and A3. He submitted that no specific overt act was attributed to the petitioner and the alleged offences under Section 109(1) BNS were not made out and that A2 and A4 were granted bail by the trial Court in cr1.M.P.Nos.3439 and 3440 of 2025, and A3 was granted bail by this court in crl.P.No.7l75 of 2025, observing that the injuries sustained were not grievous and that 12 witnesses had already been examined. He further submitted that investigation was almost completed, and no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if anticipatory bail was granted. Therefore, he prayed the court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

¶28

on the other hand, learned Additional^public prosecutor opposed the bail stating that the allegations leveled against the

¶29

; I I / I

¶30

¶31

sl(sJ Crl.P.No.1O548 of 2025

¶32

petitioner are serious in nature. He further submitted that the investi5lation was not yet completed. At this stage, granting of prearrest bail to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Cor-trt to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶33

lrr the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the allegation against the petitioner is that he attackecl the victim with a knife. As seen from the record, the investigeLtion has not yet been completed, and at this stage, it cannot tre said that custodial interrogation is necessary. However, considering the sel'erit5r of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, and the petition is liable to be dismissed

¶34