1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.10 and 11 in FIR No.266 of 2026 on the file of Warasiguda police station, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 75, 79, 109, 115(2), 127, 333, 296, 351(3) r/w 3(5), 45, 62 of BNS

3. Heard Mr. J. K. Ranjeeth Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent/State.

4. The facts, in brief, are that disputes have been subsisting between the family of the de facto complainant and the petitioners, who are admittedly acquainted with each other for several years. It is alleged that on 02.04.2026, petitioner No.1, along with his wife, came to the house of the de facto complainant, abused and assaulted her, outraged her modesty, attempted to drag her into a bedroom, made unwelcome sexual advances, criminally intimidated her and threatened her with dire consequences. The prosecution further alleges that petitioner No.1 kicked the de facto complainant, pressed her chest, bit her hand and back and threatened to subject her to rape and to cause her death. Apprehending arrest in connection with the said crime, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail.

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated owing to long-standing disputes between the families. It is submitted that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and that the present crime is nothing but a counterblast to Crime No.114 of 2026, which was registered on 02.04.2026 at about 4.30 p.m. on the complaint lodged by the wife of petitioner No.1, alleging commission of offences, including those punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the SC/ST Act’), against the de facto complainant and her family members.

               5.2. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned crime came to be registered at about 6.00 p.m. on the very same day, subsequent to the registration of Crime No.114 of 2026, which circumstance probabilises the defence version that the present complaint has been instituted by way of retaliation with a view to neutralise the earlier case by incorporating exaggerated and serious allegations. It is argued that the antecedent circumstances and the sequence of events cast doubt upon the bona fides of the prosecution case. Further contended that the Court below failed to appreciate these aspects in proper perspective and mechanically rejected the application for anticipatory bail.

               5.3. It is further contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is wholly unnecessary, particularly when they have expressed their readiness and willingness to cooperate with the investigating agency and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioners be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

6.1. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that the allegations levelled against petitioner No.1 disclose the commission of grave offences against a woman involving allegations of assault, outraging modesty, attempted sexual assault and criminal intimidation. It is submitted that the de facto complainant has specifically alleged that owing to the influence exerted by accused No.2, petitioner No.1 neglected and harassed his family members, culminating in the present incident.

               6.2. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned Sessions Judge, upon due consideration of the material available on record, rightly rejected the petition for anticipatory bail and that no fresh or exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated warranting interference by this Court. It is also contended that the investigation is at a nascent stage and that grant of anticipatory bail at this juncture may impede effective investigation and prejudice the prosecution case. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is sought.

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

8. The allegations in the complaint disclose that petitioner No.1 allegedly trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, physically assaulted her, outraged her modesty by touching her person against her will, inflicted injuries by scratching and biting her and attempted to commit rape, while the other accused are alleged to have facilitated, instigated or participated in the commission of the said acts. At the same time, it is not in dispute that the parties are admittedly known to each other and that an earlier crime had been registered at the instance of the wife of petitioner No.1 against the de facto complainant and her family members alleging commission of offences under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. It is also evident from the record that an earlier application before this court seeking similar relief had been withdrawn by the petitioners.

9. The principles governing grant of anticipatory bail are fairly well settled. Though anticipatory bail is intended to safeguard individual liberty against arbitrary arrest, the same is an extraordinary discretionary remedy to be exercised judiciously, having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence and the requirement of custodial interrogation.

10. In the present case, having regard to the specific allegations attributed to petitioner No.1 involving serious accusations of sexual assault, physical violence and criminal intimidation, the stage of investigation, the necessity of permitting the investigating agency to conduct a free and unhindered investigation and the existence of a prima facie case disclosed from the complaint, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out a case warranting exercise of the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction.

11. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.