Saud Bin Hamad @ Saud Patel, 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.2287 of 2026 DATE: 05.03.2026 BETWEEN:

Saud Bin Hamad.

.....petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

.....Respondent

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused in Crime No.628 of 2025 before the Pahadishareef Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103 r/w 3(5) of BNS.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the complaint was lodged on 14.12.2025 at about 03:00 hours by Sri. Shaik Fareed stating that on 13.12.2025 at about 10:00 PM, his brother Shaik Amer was allegedly attacked by unknown persons near Nadi Hotel, Wadi-E-Mustafa, and sustained multiple stab injuries, as a result of which he died while being shifted to the hospital. It is alleged that masked persons came on bikes and indiscriminately stabbed the deceased. Based on the said complaint, the above crime was registered and investigation was taken up.

3.

Heard Sri LK Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the above case without any direct evidence connecting him to the alleged offence. He averred that there is no CCTV footage or material evidence to establish his involvement, and no witness has been examined to substantiate the allegations. The complaint is vague and motivated, filed only to harass the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for more than 60 days,

and the prosecution has neither sought extension of remand nor filed any police custody petition, which indicates that the investigation insofar as the petitioner is concerned is substantially completed. Therefore, he prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

5.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the offence alleged is grave in nature, involving a brutal murder committed in a public place. The investigation has revealed material connecting the petitioner with the commission of the offence, and the allegations cannot be termed as vague at this stage. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss this petition. 6.

Having regard to rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that LWs.1 to 10 are already examined. Considering the period of incarceration of 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, with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the II Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy, at LB Nagar.

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).

7.

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

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 05.03.2026 PT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2287 of 2026 Date: 05.03.2026 PT