Pudur Arun Kumar, vs The State of Telangana,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 13807 OF 2026
(CNR No. HBHC010580132026)
DATE: 10.09.2026

Between :

Pudur Arun Kumar

… Petitioner/Accused No. 14

AND
The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

… Respondent/Complainant.

ORDER
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 petitioner is arrayed as Accused No. 14 in Crime No. 231 of 2024
of Chaderghat Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 302, 109, 120-B, 212 read with Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25(1B)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959.

3. Heard Mr. Pappu Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Counsel, argued on
behalf of Mr. Syed Mohammad Vazeer Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner

2
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 13807 of 2026


and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
representing the respondent-State.


4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased, Syed Najaf Ali, is
stated to have gone on 28.06.2024, along with his friend Syed Ali Habeeb
Jafri, to Nagaram Village, Vikarabad District, for welding work. Thereafter,
the deceased returned to Ali Café, Rein Bazar, along with his friend. At
about 11:08 PM on the same day, the deceased spoke to his wife over the
phone and informed her that he was with his friend, Syed Niamath
Ahmed/Accused No.8, and that he would return home after having dinner. At
about 01:54 AM on 29.06.2024, the son of the deceased/de facto
complainant received information from his cousin that his father had been
brutally murdered with knives near Malakpet Metro Station. Thereafter, the
de facto complainant proceeded to the spot and found his father lying in a
pool of blood with bleeding injuries.


4.2. It is further alleged that, about eight days prior to the incident, the
deceased had informed the de facto complainant and other family members
about a financial dispute with Accused No.3. According to the de facto
complainant, Accused No.3 and certain others had allegedly threatened the
deceased and his family members and warned them that they would be
eliminated before the Moharram Festival. In view of the aforesaid
circumstances and the alleged prior threats, the de facto complainant

3
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 13807 of 2026


expressed suspicion that Accused No.3 and others were responsible for the
murder of his father and requested that necessary legal action be taken in
accordance with law.

5.1. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the
petitioner/Accused No.14 is alleged only to have worked as the driver of
Accused Nos.12 and 13 and that there is no specific overt act, direct
evidence, or other material connecting him with the murder or the alleged
conspiracy. It is contended that there is no material to show that the
petitioner paid any amount to Accused No.1 or participated in the alleged
conspiracy and that his implication is based primarily on his association with
Accused Nos.12 and 13 as their driver.

5.2. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s name was not mentioned in
the FIR or in the statements of most of the witnesses and that there are no
relevant CDRs or other telephonic evidence connecting him with the other
accused in relation to the offence. Learned Senior Counsel points out that
the wife of the deceased/LW2 did not mention the petitioner in the statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but subsequently referred to the
petitioner in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also
contended that the prosecution has given different versions regarding the
incident and the motive and that mere suspicion cannot substitute proof.

4
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 13807 of 2026


5.3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner is innocent and
has been falsely implicated; that no prima facie material establishes his
participation in the offences or in the alleged conspiracy; and that Accused
No.12 has been granted anticipatory bail, while Accused No.13 has been
granted protection from arrest, thereby entitling the petitioner to the benefit
of parity. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the proceedings and
abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court and, accordingly,
prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and
submitted that the crime was initially registered for the offences punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 25(1)(A) of
the Arms Act, 1959. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge sheet
was filed and the case is pending as S.C. No. 554 of 2025 before the
learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The matter is presently
posted for engaging an Advocate, and Accused Nos.13 and 14 are alleged
to have been absconding since the commission of the offence.

6.2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner/Accused No.14 played a
role in the conspiracy by advising Accused Nos.3 and 12 in planning the
murder and by facilitating the alleged payment of Rs.10 lakhs to Accused
No.1 for executing the plan. Accused No.1 allegedly handed over the said
amount to Accused No.10 and instructed Accused No.2 to implement the

5
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 13807 of 2026


plan. Accused No.2 allegedly engaged Accused Nos.3 to 8 by paying
Rs.10,000/- each as an initial amount, and Accused Nos.3 to 6 allegedly
executed the murder. Accused No.9 is alleged to have advised the accused
to destroy their blood-stained clothes after the offence.

6.2. The prosecution further pleads that the alleged motive arose from an
earlier financial/civil dispute between the deceased and Accused Nos.12
and 13, including demands for money and alleged threats made by the
deceased, which allegedly led to the decision to eliminate him. It is
contended that, although Accused No.14 is not alleged to have physically
assaulted the deceased, his alleged advice, participation in the conspiracy,
and facilitation, coupled with the alleged financial link involving Rs.10 lakhs,
constitute incriminating material against him.

6.3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the offences
are grave in nature, involving murder and the use of arms, and that the
circumstances relating to the petitioner give rise to a reasonable
apprehension that, if anticipatory bail is granted, he may again evade the
judicial proceedings. It is, therefore, contended that his presence before the
trial Court is required to be secured and that, notwithstanding the filing of the
charge sheet, his conduct and the apprehension of his evasion disentitle him
to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prosecution
seeks dismissal of the petition.

6
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 13807 of 2026


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

8. Having considered the rival submissions and the material collected
during the course of investigation, this Court finds that the allegation against
the petitioner/Accused No.14 is not confined merely to his association with
Accused Nos.12 and 13 as their driver. The prosecution attributes to him a
specific conspiratorial and facilitative role, alleging that he advised Accused
Nos.12 and 13 to eliminate the deceased, pursuant to which they allegedly
engaged Accused No.1 and paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for execution
of the plan. Though the petitioner/Accused No.14 is not alleged to have
physically participated in the assault upon the deceased, his alleged role has
to be examined in the context of the prosecution case as a whole and the
material collected during investigation.

9. At the stage of considering a petition for anticipatory bail, the Court is
not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or
conduct a mini-trial. The nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific
role attributed to the accused, the material collected during investigation, the
likelihood of the accused evading the process of law, and other relevant
circumstances are matters that may legitimately be taken into consideration
while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS. The
principles governing such consideration have been recognized by the

7
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 13807 of 2026


Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) , (2020)
5 SCC 1.

10. The allegation of criminal conspiracy under Sections 120-A and 120-B
IPC may ordinarily be established by circumstantial evidence, particularly
because conspiracies are generally hatched in secrecy and direct evidence
of the meeting of minds may not be available. At the same time, mere
association with the accused, knowledge of the circumstances, or
participation in discussions, by themselves, would not be sufficient to
establish criminal conspiracy. The material must disclose circumstances
from which a reasonable inference of a meeting of minds and an agreement
to commit an illegal act, or to achieve a lawful object by illegal means, can
prima facie be drawn. The principles stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra , (2008) 10 SCC
394, are relevant in this regard.

11. In the present case, the prosecution relies upon the alleged advice
given by the petitioner/Accused No.14, the alleged financial arrangement
involving an amount of Rs.10 lakhs, the subsequent acts of cooperation
among the accused, and the circumstances which allegedly culminated in
the murder, supported by the statements of LWs.12 to 14 and other material
collected during investigation. Whether these circumstances, when ultimately
tested in evidence, are sufficient to establish the charge of conspiracy

8
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 13807 of 2026


beyond reasonable doubt is a matter to be determined at the stage of trial.
At the present stage, however, the Court cannot wholly disregard such
material, if it discloses a prima facie link between the petitioner and the
alleged conspiracy.

12. The petitioner places reliance upon the omission of his name in the
FIR and in the statements of certain witnesses, as well as upon the alleged
improvement made by the wife of the deceased/LW-2 between her
statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. These contentions
raise issues concerning the credibility of the witness, the evidentiary value of
the respective statements, and the ultimate effect of any alleged omission or
improvement. Such matters ordinarily require appreciation of the complete
evidence and cross-examination of the witnesses at trial and, therefore,
need not be conclusively determined while considering the present petition
for anticipatory bail.

13. The plea of parity based on the relief granted to Accused No.12 and
the protection granted to Accused No.13 also cannot be considered
mechanically. The principle of parity depends upon the nature and extent of
the role attributed to each accused and the material available against each
of them. The grant of anticipatory bail or other protective relief to a
co-accused does not, by itself, confer an automatic entitlement upon another
accused to similar relief. The alleged confessional statement of Accused

9
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 13807 of 2026


No.1 also requires cautious consideration. A confession made to a police
officer is subject to the statutory restrictions governing its admissibility, and
the confession of a co-accused cannot ordinarily constitute substantive
evidence against another accused. Its evidentiary value, to the extent
legally permissible, has to be considered in conjunction with independent
incriminating material. Therefore, the case against the petitioner/Accused
No.14 cannot rest solely upon the alleged confession of Accused No.1. The
said material must be assessed along with the other circumstances and
investigation material relied upon by the prosecution.

14. The allegation that the petitioner/Accused No.14 has remained
absconding since the occurrence is also a relevant circumstance.
Absconding, by itself, is not proof of guilt. Nevertheless, the likelihood of an
accused evading the process of law is a legitimate consideration while
exercising discretionary jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail. The fact that
the charge sheet has already been filed and the case is pending before the
Sessions Court, with the prosecution stating that a supplementary charge
sheet would be filed against the petitioner upon his apprehension, does not,
by itself, operate as a bar to consideration of a petition for anticipatory bail.
Nevertheless, the present stage of the proceedings and the necessity of
securing the petitioner's presence before the Court remain relevant
considerations. The question, therefore, is whether, without conducting a
mini-trial and on a prima facie assessment of the material, the prosecution

10
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 13807 of 2026


case discloses a link between the petitioner/Accused No.14 and the alleged
conspiracy and whether his alleged continued abscondence gives rise to a
reasonable apprehension that he may evade the judicial process. If the
alleged advice, the financial arrangement, the statements of the witnesses,
and the surrounding circumstances, when considered cumulatively, disclose
sufficient prima facie material connecting the petitioner with the alleged
conspiracy, the absence of his alleged physical participation in the assault
would not, by itself, justify the grant of anticipatory bail.

15. Therefore, upon a prima facie assessment of the material available on
record, this Court finds that the petitioner has remained unavailable to the
judicial process thus far and that the material collected during investigation
discloses a prima facie case against him in respect of the alleged conspiracy
and facilitative role attributed to him. In the circumstances, the petitioner has
not made out sufficient grounds for grant of anticipatory bail. The prayer of
the petitioner, therefore, falls short of merit.

16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is liable to be and is hereby
dismissed.

17. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are
confined to the consideration of the present petition for anticipatory bail and
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

11
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 13807 of 2026


Nothing contained in this order shall prejudice the rights of the parties or the
independent consideration of the evidence by the trial Court in accordance
with law. It is further clarified that the dismissal of the present application
shall not preclude the petitioner from availing of such remedy/remedies as
may otherwise be available in law, including surrendering before the
jurisdictional Trial Court and seeking regular bail, in accordance with law. In
the event the petitioner surrenders before the jurisdictional Trial Court and
moves an appropriate application for regular bail, the same shall be
considered and decided on its own merits, in accordance with law, and
uninfluenced by any observations made in the present order, subject, of
course, to the petitioner satisfying the requirements for grant of such relief.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.


_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 10.09.2026
svl