The Telangana High Court, on December 23, 2024, declined the anticipatory bail plea filed by veteran actor Mohan Babu. The petition arose in connection with allegations of an assault on a journalist associated with the TV9 network.

Court Observations

Justice K. Lakshman, while delivering the order, stated, "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."

The court stressed that an anticipatory bail application does not permit an assessment of the complainant's statements or the testimonies of the two other eyewitnesses "to come to a conclusion that the same lacks the ingredients" of Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which addresses an attempt to murder. Additionally, the Court noted that there is "every possibility" of the petitioner hindering the investigation.

Background

The case originates from an alleged incident on December 10,2024. According to the complainant (respondent No.2), he visited the petitioner's residence at around 7:50 PM for news coverage. It is claimed that the petitioner’s son, Manchu Manoj, invited the journalist and other media personnel inside the premises.

The complainant alleges that at approximately 8:05 PM, when he interviewed Mohan Babu while placing the channel's microphone in front of him, the petitioner "immediately grabbed the mike (stainless steel metal) and beat him with the said mike at his left eye and in the midst, under the ear, due to which he sustained severe injury."

u

Following the incident, a case was registered against Mohan Babu under sections 329(4) (criminal trespass), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) read with 3(5) of the BNS. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer, after recording statements from the complainant and two eyewitnesses and obtaining the medical report, filed a memo on December 11, 2024, including charges under Section 109(1) (attempt to murder).

Key Findings

The court observed that the complainant’s discharge summary indicated he was admitted to Yashoda Hospital on December 11, underwent surgery the same day, and was discharged on December 15. Additionally, the complainant stated he remains on medication and relies on liquid food administered via a pipe.

The court noted that the petitioner, after the incident, "fled to Dubai" and subsequently visited the complainant at Yashoda Hospital on December 15. While the petitioner provided no explanation for this meeting, the complainant alleged that the petitioner attempted to influence him to withdraw the complaint.

Court’s Decision

In its judgment, the High Court stated, “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.”

Cause Title: Dr. Mohan Babu vs. State of Telangana and another

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.15432 OF 2024

Date: December-23-2024

Bench: Justice K. Lakshman

[Read/Download order]