'Prima Facie Serious Allegations': Telangana High Court Declines Anticipatory Bail To Actor Mohan Babu Over Alleged Attack On Journalist

The Telangana High Court on Monday (December 23)  dismissed the anticipatory bail plea moved by veteran actor Mohan Babu in connection with the alleged attack on a TV9 journalist.

Justice K Lakshman in his order observed, "Respondent No.2 (complainant) received grievous injury and he underwent surgery. Prima facie, there are serious allegations against the petitioner. Investigation is pending. There is specific allegation against the petitioner (Babu) that he is trying to influence respondent No.2 with a request to withdraw the present complaint and, thus, he is interfering with the investigation in the subject crime". 

Noting that the court was considering an anticipatory bail plea, the court observed that it cannot consider the contents of statements of respondent No.2-complainant and also the statements of other two eye witnesses "to come to a conclusion that the same lacks the ingredients" of Section - 109 (1) of the BNS–which pertains to attempt to murder. 

It further found that there was "every possibility" of petitioner trying to interfere the investigation and hence declined his anticipatory bail plea. 

The high court had earlier this month directed the police to conduct surveillance of the Babu's house every 2 hours and ensure abidance to law and order, after the actor alleged that his younger son had allegedly made multiple attempts to evict Babu of his property, creating an unsafe atmosphere. The court had also directed the Commissionerate Of Police, Hyderabad and Additional District Magistrate, Rachakonsa not to compel the presence Babu in a show cause notice issued to him under section 126 of BNSS.

In the present case the respondent no.2-complainant has alleged that on December 10 at approximately 19:50 hours, he went to Babu's house for news coverage. The  respondent no.2-complainant claimed that the petitioner's son "Manchu Manoj, came there, opened the farmhouse gate, called him and other Media Reporters inside and requested them to cover news". 

The complainant has claimed that around 20:05 hours, he along with other reporters went inside the house as requested by the petitioner's son, then respondent No.2 questioned the petitioner placing the channel's mike, but "immediately the petitioner heatedly grabbed TV9 Mike (stainless steel metal) and beat him with the said mike at his left eye and in the midst under ear part due to which he received severe injury". 

Thereafter a case was registered against Babu under BNS Sections 329(4) (Criminal trespass and house-trespass), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) read with 3(5) (When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone). Later the Investigating Officer after taking respondent no. 2's statement as well as the statements of two other eye witnesses and in view of the medical report, filed a memo on December 11 adding Section 109 (1) (attempt to murder) of BNS. 

Apprehending arrest, the petitioner moved the high court seeking anticipatory bail.

Findings

The high court noted that respondent no.2-complainant's discharge summary revealed that he was  admitted at Yashoda Hospital on December 11 and he underwent surgery on the same day itself. He was discharged from the hospital on December 15. The court noted the complainant's contention that he is on medication and taking liquid food through a pipe. 

The court further noted that it was not disputed that after the alleged incident, the petitioner "fled to Dubai" and he met respondent No.2 in Yashoda Hospital on December 15.

It then said that there was no explanation given by the petitioner with regard to the purpose of this meeting. On the other hand, the complainant had specifically contented that the petitioner met him only to influence him and with a request to withdraw the complaint. 

The high court thereafter said,“Admittedly, after the incident, the petitioner fled to Dubai. He also met respondent No.2 in the Hospital on 15.12.2024. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner did not dispute the said fact. There is no explanation from the petitioner with regard to the purpose of his meeting respondent No.2. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner tried to influence respondent No.2 at the hospital. Therefore, there is every possibility of the petitioner interfering with the investigation and thereby the Investigating Officer will not be in a position to conduct investigation in the subject crime in a fair and transparent manner. Thus, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The present petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.”

Case title: Dr. Mohan Babu vs. State of Telangana and another

Counsel for petitioner: Senior Advocate L Ravichander representing advocate Mamidi Avinash Reddy

Counsel for State: Additional Public Prosecutor Jithender Rao Veeramalla 

Counsel for respondent no. 2: Advocate Enuganti Sudhanshu Rao

Click Here To Read/Download Order