Mohammed Shabir v. The State Of Telangana, Through S.H.O., P.S. Medipally,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4921 OF 2026 DATE : 27.04.2026 Between:

Mohammed Shabir & two others ....Petitioners/A.2 to A.4 AND The State of Telangana ..... Respondent : ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.57 of 2026 of Medipally Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Cyberabad District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 329 (4), 324(4), 109 r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').

2.

The facts of the case are that on 11.01.2026 at 01:30 hours, a Zero FIR No. 0-1/2025 was received from Pocharam

ITC Police Station, which was originally registered on 10.01.2026 at 16:00 hours based on the complaint of Khaja Aleemuddin, S/o Imamuddin, aged about 36 years, private employee, resident of Narapally, Medipally Mandal, MedchalMalkajgiri District. He stated that on 10.01.2026 in the morning, he along with other plot owners, namely Mohammad Ali, Anas Ahmad, Ramesh, Ather Guddu, Abdul Rashed, Azhar and others of Ekasila Nagar, Narapally, were cleaning their plots the accused persons, namely A-1 Shabir, A-2 Qamar, A-3 Jaffar, A-4 Zakir, A-5 Jamal, A-6 Nizam, A-7 Sameer, A-8 Sai, A-9 Mohd Motu Shakir and about 30 others, came there claiming that the plots belonged to A. Venkatesh and attacked them. Out of fear, the complainant and others locked themselves inside the house of Shiva Reddy at Baba Nagar, Narapally.

However, the accused allegedly broke open the door, trespassed into the house stating that they were henchmen of A. Venkatesh, and assaulted them with knives and iron rods. In the attack, the complainant sustained injuries on his head and nose, and Mohd Azhar sustained injuries on his head. Hence, the complainant requested necessary legal action against the accused persons.

3.

Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the complaint is false, baseless, and filed with mala fide intention to harass the petitioners, who have no connection with the alleged offences. It is submitted that the dispute relates to title and possession of land purchased long ago by the partnership firm Sri Harsha Construction under registered sale deeds, and several civil proceedings before this Court and other courts have recognized the firm's rights, showing that the matter is purely civil in nature. It is further contended that rival claimants and their supporters illegally entered the land and attempted to form layouts, and when the petitioners, who were only security personnel, resisted them, false criminal cases were lodged. The learned counsel further submitted that no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners, the allegations are vague, omnibus and the ingredients of Section 109 of BNS are not made out, as there is no allegation of any intention to cause death. It is also submitted that substantial investigation has already been

completed and material witnesses have been examined and that A.6 and A.11 were granted bail by this Court. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner stating that the petitioners herein along with other accused were appointed by one A. Venkatesh who is A.1 to guard the said property and when the de-facto complainant and others went to the scene of offence, the petitioners herein along with other accused attacked the de-facto complainant and they were severely beaten by the petitioners and other accused. Further the petitioners are involved in similar offences. As such, they are not entitled to anticipatory bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6.

Considering the rival submissions and the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the dispute appears to arise out of long-standing civil litigation concerning title and possession of the subject land, and the allegations against petitioner Nos.2 and 3/A.3 and A.4 are general in nature without any specific overt acts.

As investigation has substantially progressed, the custodial interrogation of

petitioner Nos.2 and 3/A.3 and A.4 is not necessary. However, insofar as petitioner No.1/A.2 is concerned, the prosecution specifically alleges active involvement in the assault. In view of the seriousness of allegations, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner No.1/A.2 and inclined to grant bail to petitioner Nos.2 and 3/A.3 and A.4 subject to following conditions :

i. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3/A.3 and A.4 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Medipally Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District within two weeks from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release the petitioners on bail on their executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties, for the like sum each. ii. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3/A.3 and A.4 shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 05.00 p.m., on every Monday 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 Nos.2 and 3/A.3 and A.4 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 partly allowed granting anticipatory bail to petitioner Nos.2 and 3/A.3 and A.4 and dismissed in sofar as petitioner No.1/A.2 is concerned. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 27.04.2026 Rds

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4921 OF 2026 DATE : 27.04.2026 Rds