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

2. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 4 to 6 in Crime No. 275 of 2026 of Jammikunta Police Station, Karimnagar District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr. R.S. Sumith Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.07.2026 at about 11:30 p.m., the de facto complainant, along with his relative, was returning towards Venkateshwarlapalli Village on motorcycle bearing No. AP 36 Q 8668. When they reached near the Gram Panchayat Office, Venkateshwarlapalli Village, they were allegedly intercepted and wrongfully restrained by six persons/accused. It is alleged that all the six accused assaulted the de facto complainant with their hands, as a result of which he sustained bleeding injuries to various parts of his body and subsequently underwent medical treatment. It is further alleged that the accused snatched the keys of the motorcycle, forcibly took away the said motorcycle, and fled from the scene.

               4.2. The de facto complainant further alleged that, prior to the incident, the same persons had quarrelled with police personnel at the Police Check Post near Ambedkar Chowrasta, Korapalli Village, and that he had recorded the said altercation on his mobile phone. The de facto complainant stated that he subsequently identified the aforesaid six persons as the assailants and explained the delay in lodging the complaint on the ground that he was undergoing treatment following the incident. On the basis of the said complaint, the present crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present crime and were subsequently identified and arrayed as Accused Nos.4 to 6. It is contended that their implication is a consequence of the earlier altercation with the police personnel in connection with Crime No.274 of 2026, registered for the offence punishable under Section 132 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS. According to the petitioners, the allegations in the present crime do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, particularly the requirement of dishonest intention, mens rea, or dacoity. It is further contended that the alleged motorcycle was recovered by the Police on the very same day and, as per the remand report, had been abandoned by the accused. According to the petitioners, this circumstance indicates an absence of any intention to permanently appropriate the property. Even if the allegations are taken at their face value, it is contended that they may attract the offences under Sections 303 and 304 of the BNS and not the offence under Section 310(2) of the BNS.

               5.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the material witnesses have already been examined and that the investigation is substantially complete. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is neither necessary nor warranted, particularly when the alleged property has already been recovered. The petitioners undertake to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed. It is further submitted that the petitioners are permanent residents and that there is no likelihood of their absconding, tampering with the evidence, or influencing the prosecution witnesses. As the petitioners have a genuine apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment, learned counsel submits that they are entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submits that the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of a serious offence by the accused. It is submitted that the accused persons allegedly intercepted and wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and his relative while they were proceeding on a motorcycle and thereafter assaulted them, causing bleeding injuries to the nose, left side of the head, right hand, and lips of the de facto complainant. It is further submitted that the accused allegedly snatched the keys of the motorcycle, forcibly took it away, and fled from the scene.

               6.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that, prior to the alleged incident, the same accused had an altercation with police personnel at the Police Check Post near Ambedkar Statue, Korapalli Village, which was recorded by the de facto complainant on his mobile phone. It is submitted that the de facto complainant subsequently identified the six accused persons as those involved in the occurrence. In view of the specific overt allegations against the accused, the seriousness of the accusations, the alleged assault resulting in injuries to the de facto complainant, and the taking away of the motorcycle, he submits that the petitioners do not deserve the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed.

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

8. The prosecution case, prima facie, is that six persons, acting conjointly, intercepted and wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and his companion, assaulted the de facto complainant, causing injuries to him, and forcibly took away his motorcycle.

9. Section 309(2) of the BNS, inter alia, contemplates theft accompanied by voluntarily causing or attempting to cause hurt or wrongful restraint, while Section 310 provides that robbery committed or attempted by five or more persons conjointly constitutes dacoity, and Section 310(2) prescribes the punishment therefor. Hence, the contention that Section 310 is not attracted for want of an allegation of dishonest intention or mens rea cannot, at this stage, be accepted as decisive, particularly in view of the specific allegations of forcible taking, wrongful restraint, and assault. The subsequent recovery of the motorcycle on the same day may be relevant at the stage of trial; however, by itself, such recovery does not efface the allegation that the motorcycle was forcibly taken during the occurrence.

10. Similarly, the plea of false implication arising out of the earlier altercation with the police personnel in Crime No.274 of 2026 is a matter of defence which, in the absence of compelling material, cannot outweigh the specific allegations, the identification of the petitioners, and the presence of eye-witnesses.

11. It is well settled that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to balance the personal liberty of the accused with the requirements of a fair and effective investigation. The principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, require the Court to consider, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the prima facie case, and other relevant circumstances.

12. Mere recovery of the motorcycle or an undertaking to cooperate with the investigation does not, by itself, render custodial interrogation unnecessary or justify the grant of pre-arrest protection. In the present case, the allegations involve six persons acting conjointly, wrongful restraint, assault causing injuries, and the forcible taking away of a valuable motorcycle, attracting the statutory framework relating to robbery and dacoity. The specific allegations, identification of the accused, the cited eye-witnesses, and the gravity of the accusations outweigh the circumstances relied upon by the petitioners. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or the defence of false implication, this Court finds no sufficient ground to exercise its discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed and is, therefore, dismissed. The observations made herein are confined to the consideration of the present application and shall not prejudice the investigation or the trial on merits.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.