Shaik Muneer v. The State Of Telangana
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8446 OF 2026 AND 8993 OF 2026 DATE : 16.06.2026 Between:
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8446 OF 2026:
Shaik Muneer and 12 others.
...Petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14,
21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 33 and 34.
AND The State of Telangana rep by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana Hyderabad
...Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8993 OF 2026:
Ale Saida and another.
...Petitioners/Accused Nos.15 &18
AND The State of Telangana rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana Hyderabad
...Respondent
COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), seeking grant of anticipatory bail.
2.
The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 2, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 33, 34, 15 and 18 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 126(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (for short, "BNS") in the Crime No.70 of 2026 on the file of Chinthalapalem Police Station Suryapet District. 3.
Heard Mr. S. Chandra Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State. 4.1.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.05.2026, on the occasion of the Bakrid festival, the de facto complainant and his family members were proceeding on their way when they allegedly overtook a tractor being driven by accused Nos.1 in the company of accused No.
2. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2, who were purportedly harbouring animosity against the family of the de facto complainant on account of prior disputes, intentionally drove the tractor in a manner so as to run over the de facto complainant and his family members. Though the alleged attempt did not result in loss of life, it is stated to
have caused grievous injuries to certain members of the complainant's family. According to the prosecution, the act was committed with the intention of causing death or, at any rate, such bodily injuries as were likely to endanger life.
4.2.
It is further alleged that, thereafter, nearly forty five persons, including the present petitioners, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the house of the village Sarpanch by pelting stones and using axes and sticks, thereby creating panic in the village. Owing to fear arising from the said incident, the de facto complainant and his family members allegedly confined themselves to their residence. The present complaint came to be lodged in the aftermath of the said occurrences.
5.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are wholly baseless and that they have been falsely implicated owing to longstanding civil and personal disputes between the parties. Learned counsel further submits that this Court, by order in Criminal Petition No.8231 of 2026, has already granted anticipatory bail to accused Nos.9, 10, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 22, whose role and allegations stand on the same footing as those attributed to the present petitioners. Invoking the principle of parity, it is argued that the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief, particularly when they are ready and willing to cooperate with the
investigation and there exists a reasonable apprehension of their arrest.
6.
Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petitions and submitted that the complaint specifically discloses that petitioner No.1/accused No.2 in Criminal Petition No.8446 of 2026 was travelling on the tractor along with accused No.1 at the time of the alleged occurrence and, therefore, his case stands on a different footing. However, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that the allegations against the remaining petitioners in both the petitions are substantially similar to those levelled against the accused persons in Criminal Petition No.8231 of 2026, who have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.
7.
I have carefully perused the material available on record. 8.
A perusal of the police report prima facie indicates that petitioner No.1/accused No.2 in Criminal Petition No.8446 of 2026 is specifically alleged to have accompanied accused No.1 on the tractor during the occurrence in question. At this stage, such allegation distinguishes his case from that of the other petitioners. However, insofar as the remaining petitioners are concerned, the allegations attributed to them appear to be omnibus in nature and substantially identical to those made against the accused persons who were granted anticipatory bail in Criminal Petition No.8231 of 2026.
9.
It is well settled that parity is an important consideration in matters relating to grant of bail and anticipatory bail, unless distinguishing circumstances are shown to exist. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that similarly situated accused persons ought to receive similar treatment in bail matters, subject to the facts and circumstances of each case.
10.
Further, while considering an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, the Court is required to examine, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, and the likelihood of his tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing witnesses. These principles have been authoritatively enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565.
11.
Having regard to the nature of allegations against the remaining petitioners, the absence of any specific overt acts attributed to them, and bearing in mind the principle of parity, this Court is of the considered opinion that they are entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
12.
Accordingly, Criminal Petition No.8446 of 2026 is partly allowed. The prayer for anticipatory bail insofar as petitioner No.1/accused No.2 in Criminal Petition No.8446 of 2026 is concerned is rejected. However,
petitioner Nos.2 to 13, namely accused Nos.8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 33 and 34 in Criminal Petition No.8446 of 2026, and petitioner Nos.1 and 2, namely accused Nos.15 and 18 in Criminal Petition No.8993 of 2026, shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail in Crime No.70 of 2026 of Chinthalapalem Police Station, Suryapet District, subject to the following conditions: (a) The Petitioners Nos.2 to 13/A-8, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14, A21, A-23, A-25, A-27, A-28, A-33 and A-34 and the petitioners 1 and 2/A-15 and A-18 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Chinthalapalem Police Station, Suryapet District on or before 03.07.2026. Upon such surrender, or in the event of their arrest, the Station House Officer shall release them on bail upon each of them executing 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. (b) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer every Thursday between 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. for a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of their release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects. (c) The petitioners shall remain available for interrogation as and when required during the course of investigation and shall extend full cooperation to the investigation.
(e) The petitioner shall furnish their complete residential addresses and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the proceedings before the trial court.
(e) The petitioner shall neither directly nor indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall they tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(f) In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions by the petitioners, the prosecution shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps seeking cancellation of bail. (g) Upon any such breach, the Court below shall be at liberty to consider the prosecution's request for cancellation of bail on its own merits and in accordance with law.
10.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. __________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date : 17.06.2026 MRKR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8446 AND 8993 OF 2026 DATE : 17.06.2026 MRKR