Allowed

Sai Teja Sairaju v. The State of Telagnana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/14108/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a criminal petition for anticipatory bail. The petitioner was accused in a robbery/dacoity case based on co-accused statements but had no physical material against him. Bail was granted subject to surrender and investigation cooperation conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail, required to surrender by 23.09.2026 and appear before Investigating Officer twice weekly for twelve weeks.

Sai Teja Sairaju Vs The State of Telagnana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶3

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14108 OF 2026

¶4

(CNR No. HBHC010587192026)

DATE: 08.09.2026

Between :

Sai Teja @ Sairaju

… Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana

¶11

… Respondent

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail.

¶14

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 in Crime No.352 of 2026 on the file of Jeedimetla Police Station, Cyberabad registered for the offence punishable under Section 309(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

¶15

Heard Mr.B.Krishna Kanth, learned Counsel representing Mr.M.Durga

¶16

Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon,

¶17

learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent -State.

¶18

¶19

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.04.2026, at about 11:45 p.m., while the de facto complainant and his friends were consuming beer; four unknown offenders approached them and assaulted them with their hands. During the course of the incident, the offenders allegedly snatched the de facto complainant’s gold chain weighing 7.5 grams and his OnePlus mobile phone. Based on the report lodged by the de facto complainant, the present crime came to be registered.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has no manner of involvement in the alleged offence. It is contended that the petitioner’s alleged involvement has been disclosed only on the basis of the statements of the co-accused/Accused No.1. Learned counsel further submits that, according to the prosecution, the stolen property was seized from Accused Nos.1 to 3, and there is no material connecting the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence, nor was any material disclosing possibility of his involvement in the offence was recovered from his possession. It is further submitted that Accused Nos.1 to 3 have already been released on bail and, therefore, there is no justifiable reason for the investigating agency to insist upon securing the petitioner’s presence for the purpose of investigation. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. Accordingly, prays that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

¶21

¶22

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition and submits that, during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner, along with five others, was involved in the alleged occurrence. In view of the said development, the section of law was altered to Section 310(2) of the BNS, which relates to the offence of dacoity and is a serious offence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the presence of the petitioner is required for the purpose of test identification parade and that the petitioner has remained unavailable since the registration of the crime. It is further contended that, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is a likelihood of his evading the process of investigation and thereby hampering the investigation. However, it is submitted that, during the course of investigation, ten witnesses have already been examined and the investigation is still pending. Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶23

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.

¶24

The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS, is intended to balance the protection of individual liberty with the requirement of a fair, effective and unhindered investigation. While considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court must have regard to the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the possibility of his fleeing from justice,

¶25

¶26

tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the genuine requirement of custodial interrogation, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra , (2011) 1 SCC 694. Further at this stage, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the prosecution material or record definitive findings on disputed questions of fact, but only to make a prima facie assessment of the relevant circumstances.

¶27

In the instant case, the petitioner’s alleged involvement surfaced from the statement of the co-accused. However, no specific overt act has been attributed to him, and the alleged stolen articles were recovered from Accused Nos.1 to 3, who have already been arrested and released on bail. Though parity is a relevant consideration, it cannot be applied mechanically; the Court must examine the nature of the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner, the material against him, the recovery, and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

¶28

Having regard to the fact that, apart from the statement of the coaccused regarding the petitioner’s presence during the occurrence, no other overt act has been pleaded and considering the stage of the investigation and the requirement of the petitioner’s presence, as projected by the investigating agency, which is principally for the purpose of conducting a test identification parade, and there being no specific circumstance demonstrating any further

¶29

¶30

necessity for his custodial interrogation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to such conditions as may ensure his availability and cooperation with the investigation and safeguard the interests of the investigation, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶31

For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions.

¶32

(A) The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Jeedimetla Police Station, Cyberabad on or before 23.09.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release his on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer.

¶33

(B) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Tuesday and Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of his release on bail or until the filing of the final result, whichever is earlier.

¶34

(C) The petitioner shall remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation.

¶35

¶36

(D) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation.

¶37

(E) The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶38

(F) The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

¶39

(G) Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings before the court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

¶40

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J

¶42

Date: 08.09.2026 CHS

¶43

¶44

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶45

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14108 OF 2026

¶46

DATE: 08.09.2026

¶47

CHS

Sai Teja Sairaju v. The State of Telagnana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sai Teja Sairaju v. The State of Telagnana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases