ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.326 of 2025 on the file of the Station House Officer, Alwal Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 105, 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.03.2025, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner/accused No.1 and others alleging that petitioner/accused No.1 purchased rice worth Rs.2,60,000/- from de-facto complainant’s elder brother and issued a cheque for the said amount. When the cheque was presented in the bank for encashment, the same was returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. Subsequently, the de-facto complainant along with his brother went to the residence of the petitioner/accused No.1 to seek clarification about the payment. During the course of conversation, the petitioner, along with his wife and son (accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively), allegedly abused them. It is further alleged that petitioner/accused No.1 pushed the de-facto complainant’s elder brother, resulting which he fell down and lose his consciousness. The injured was taken to the Hospital, where the Doctors declared his condition as critical. Hence, the complaint. 3. Heard Sri K. Karunakar, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not involved in the said offence and he has been falsely implicated in the crime, which is purely civil nature. The allegation is that petitioner/accused No.1 purchased rice worth Rs.2,60,000/- and issued a post-dated cheque in discharge of the said liability is incorrect. Although it is alleged that the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds, the proper and efficacious remedy is available to the de-facto complainant to issue notice to the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 . However, instead of initiating proceedings as per the statutory provisions, the de-facto complainant along with his brother unlawfully trespassed into the residential premises of the petitioner/accused No.1. It is further submitted that the de-facto complainant is a chronic patient of hypertension and he had been under medical care and he was hospitalized just a month before the alleged incident. However, instead of initiating proceedings as per the statutory provisions, the de-facto complainant along with his brother unlawfully trespassed into the residential premises of the petitioner/accused No.1. It is further submitted that the de-facto complainant is a chronic patient of hypertension and he had been under medical care and he was hospitalized just a month before the alleged incident. Therefore, any claim of collapse or unconsciousness on the said date appears to be a consequence of his pre-existing medical condition and cannot be attributed to any assault by the petitioner/accused No.1. Further, there are no specific overt-acts attributed against accused Nos.2 and 3, petitioner/accused No.1 has no intention or mens rea to commit the offence and he has permanent abode in Hyderabad. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.1. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioner/accused No.1 and he filed Crl. M.P. No. 187 of 2025 in Crime No.326 of 2025 on the file of II Additional District and Session Judge-cum-I Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri and the same was dismissed vide order, dated 02.05.2025 as the investigation was yet to be completed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it is revealed that there are serious allegations levelled against petitioner/accused No.1 and the investigation is still in progress. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.1 at this stage, especially when the investigation is under progress, there is every chance to interfere with the investigation and influence the witnesses. Further, the petitioner/accused No.1 has not pleaded anywhere that he is apprehending arrest in the hands of Police. Therefore, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and the stage of the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.1. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.