Adil Mohd Khan v. The State Of Telangana
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2126 OF 2026 DATE : 06.03.2026 Between :
Adil Mohd. Khan ...
Petitioner/A.3 And The State of Telangana, P.S. Narsingi, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High CourtatHyderabad, ... Respondent/Complainant : ORDER :
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, by the petitioner/A.3 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.699 of 2025 of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections329(3), 324(4), 336(2), 338, 308(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- 2 - 2.
The facts of the case are that on09.04.2025 at 21:30 hours, the complainant, lodged a complaint stating that his late father P.V. Kutumba Rao, his mother P. Annapurnamma, and his grandparents Sri Nagaya and late Smt. P. Chukamma had purchased Ac.107.00 guntas of land in Survey Nos.135, 137, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 159, 160, and 161 of Narsingi Village, Ranga Reddy District, in the year 1958, and later developed the same into a plotted layout named Brindhavan Colony in 1967. He stated that their family had sold about 269 plots and still owned several vacant plots in the said survey numbers. He further stated that recently some unknown persons have impersonated his ancestors and family members, forging their signatures, and created fake documents in respect of the said lands. On 09.04.
2025 at about 17:30 hours, when he inspected the land in Survey Nos.146, 147, 148, and 149, he noticed unauthorized construction of pre-fabricated walls at Plot D3/1, Plot No.34 in Survey No.149. On questioning the persons present at the site, one person identified himself as Ashok. When confronted about the construction, the said Ashok allegedly threatened the complainant and his family with dire consequences, including death threats, if they interfered with the construction.
- 3 - Narsingi, Adil, and Latif, owned several plots in Brindhavan Colony, but failed to produce any valid ownership documents. Therefore, the complainant requested that necessary legal action be taken.
3.
Heard Sri Ibad Ur Rehman Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 4.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was not present at the place of incident and no overt acts are attributed to him in the complaint and no specific role is attributed to him. He further contended that even if the allegations are taken at its face value they disclose civil dispute for which criminal color has been given. The entire case has been based on the oral statements and documents which are already with the investigating agency, as such custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed for grant of anticipatory bail contending thatA.1 claimed thathe
- 4 - along with A.2, A.4 and the petitioner owned multiple plots in Brindhavan Colony and further demanded the complainant to give Rs.2 Crores to him and his associates, to settle the issue. On enquiry A.1 shown some soft copies of documents in his phone and on verification, they were found forged and fabricated documents. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may not cooperate with the investigation. Hence, prayed to dismiss this criminal petition.
6.
Considering the submissions made by both the parties and the material on record, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner, except A.1 stating that he along with other accused committed offence. The crime is registered in April, 2025, A.1 was already arrested and released on bail. Considering the nature of allegations and the investigation is basing on the documentary evidence, this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions :
i.
The petitioner shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad within two weeks from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release the petitioner on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
- 5 - Twenty Five Thousand only)with two sureties, for the like sum each.
ii.
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 05.00 p.m., on every Wednesday for a period of eight (8) weeks, for the purpose of investigation or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier and thereafter, as and when required.
iii.
The petitioner shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482 (2) of BNSS and co-operate with the Investigating Officer in investigating the case.
7.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :06.03.2026 Rds
- 6 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2126 OF 2026 DATE :06.03.2026
- 7 - Rds