Ayoub Bin Alvi @ Ayub Jabri, 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.2212 of 2026 DATE:

BETWEEN:

Ayoub Bin Alvi @ Ayub Jabri .....petitioner/accused And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad and another.

.....Respondent/complainant

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused in Crime No.569 of 2025 before the Amberpet Police Station,

Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 80(2) of BNS.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that on 13.12.2025 at about 20:30 hours, a complaint was received from the de facto complainant stating that her younger sister Nazneen had been in a relationship with the petitioner prior to her arranged marriage with Muzmmin on 09.05.2025. Later, the petitioner allegedly threatened Nazneen with suicide, due to which she went with him, obtained a divorce from her husband, and married Ayub Jabri on 21.11.2025 without informing her family. After the marriage, Nazneen informed her family that the petitioner was already married with four children and was harassing her for dowry, threatening her life, and preventing her from visiting her family without bringing dowry money. She further informed that she was two months pregnant and was being neglected and harassed by her husband. On 13.12.

2025, the petitioner informed the family that Nazneen was not opening the door and later stated that she had died.

and committed suicide. Based on the complaint, the crime was registered for the above said offences.

3.

Heard Sri Mohd Muzaferullah Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State and Sri Abdul Quddus Mohd, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/de facto complainant.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the averments in the complaint do not attract the provisions of Section 80(2) of the BNS and that there are no allegations of dowry harassment against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 16.12.2025 and that the material part of the investigation has already been completed and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Apart from this, the trial Court dismissed the bail petition on the ground that several cases were registered against the petitioner and that he had a rowdy sheet. However, even according to the remand report, those cases relate to the year 2015 and have ended in acquittal, and the rowdy sheet has

not been cancelled by this Court. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5.

Learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that, due to the pressure exerted by the petitioner, she signed some papers, and that there was no information received by the de facto complainant to show that the petitioner had harassed the deceased.

6.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the there are serious allegations against the petitioner and there are other cases pending against the petitioner. Further, the investigation is not yet completed. At this stage, granting of bail to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

7.

In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner is in jail since 16.12.2025. Though several cases were registered against the

petitioner, the same have already ended in acquittal, and the offence in the present crime is under Section 80(2) of the BNS, which is different from the offences previously registered against the petitioner. As seen from the record, the material part of the investigation has been completed and L.Ws.1 to 15 witnesses have been examined. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the incarceration period of the petitioner, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: i.

The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

ii.

The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) week or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of

investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.

iii.

The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.(presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).

8.

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 05.03.2026 SAI

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2212 of 2026 Date: 05.03.2026 SAI