Mirza Idris Baig v. The State Of Telangana Through Sho Ps Bhainsa Town,
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5095 OF 2026 DATE : 16.04.2026 Between:
Mirza Idris Baig & ten others ....Petitioners/A.6 to A.16 AND The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O, Bhainsa Town, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, ..... Respondent/Complainant : 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 FIR No.88 of 2026 of Bhainsa Town Police Station, Nirmal District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 109, 189, 351(2) r/w.190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 2.
The brief facts of the case are that on 03.04.2026 at about 11:00 p.m., the complainant, Mohamad Razi, lodged a complaint stating that he came across a post on a Facebook
page namely "Boys of Bhainsa," wherein he was falsely portrayed in a humiliating manner wearing a saree, thereby defaming him and lowering his dignity in public. In response, the complainant uploaded a video on social media calling upon the persons responsible to come forward and speak directly. It is alleged that after seeing the said video, the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common intention to kill the complainant and initially searched for him at his agricultural field and later waited near his residence. Thereafter, at about 7:45 p.m., when the complainant was proceeding near Qazi House along with others, the accused allegedly attacked him and his companions with sticks and iron rods with an intention to kill, causing bleeding injuries to one Qaudeer on his head with an iron rod assaulting Amer Ahmed, and creating fear and panic among them. Hence, complainant requested the police to take necessary action against the accused. Basing on the said complaint, police registered the case against the accused for the above offences. 3.
Heard Sri K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State.
4.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that on the date of incident, when petitioner No.1 was at his house along with his family members, the complainant in Crime No.88 of 2026, along with others, allegedly trespassed into his house and attacked him and his family members with rods, sticks and a knife, causing bleeding injuries, pursuant to which petitioner No.1 lodged a complaint and a counter case was registered in Crime No.89 of 2026.
Learned counsel further submitted that thereafter the said complainant, with the support of local political leaders, lodged a false complaint as a counterblast to the case registered against them and got the present crime registered only to harass the petitioners and pressurize them for compromise. It is contended that neither the complainant nor any other person sustained injuries in the alleged incident and that the allegations against the petitioners are false and baseless. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are respectable residents of Bhainsa Town, are ready to cooperate with the investigation, and undertake not to influence witnesses or interfere with the investigation.
5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the petitioners along with other accused attacked the victim after seeing video and caused injuries. Further there are 9 cases pending against petitioner Nos.1 and 2/A.6 and A.7 and two cases are pending against petitioner No.3/A.8. If petitioners are granted bail, they may tamper with evidence and threaten the witnesses. Hence, petitioners are not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.
6.
In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court observes that the allegations in the present case disclose a prima facie involvement of the accused persons in the alleged incident. However, it is also evident that there exists a case and counter-case between the parties in Crime Nos.88 and 89 of 2026, which indicates that the incident appears to have arisen out of a dispute between two groups.
7. As regards petitioner Nos.1 to 3/A.6 to A.8, the record reflects that multiple criminal cases are pending against them, as specifically pointed out by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor. Their antecedents, coupled with the nature of allegations that they actively participated in the attack, create a reasonable apprehension that, if released on bail, they may tamper with prosecution evidence or threaten witnesses. Considering the said criminal antecedents and their alleged role in the commission of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to petitioner Nos.1 to 3/A.6 to A.8 at this stage.
8. However, in so far as petitioner Nos.4 to 11/A.9 to A.16 are concerned, there are no specific overt acts attributed to them except general allegations of participation. Moreover, no material is placed before this Court to show that they have any criminal antecedents similar to petitioner Nos.1 to 3. Having regard to the nature of accusations and the role attributed to them, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to petitioner Nos.4 to 11/A.9 to A.16 subject to the following conditions : i.
The petitioner Nos.4 to 11/A.9 to A.16 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Bhainsa Town Police Station, Nirmal District within two weeks from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release petitioner Nos.4 to 11/A.9 to A.16 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.4 to 11/A.9 to A.16 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.4 to 11/A.9 to A.16 shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482 (2) of BNSS and co-operate with the Investigating Officer in investigating the case.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition in sofar as petitioner Nos.4 to 11/A.9 to A.16 is allowed and dismissed in sofar as petitioner Nos.1 to 3/A.6 to A.8 is concerned. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 16.04.2026 Rds THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5095 OF 2026 DATE : 16.04.2026 Rds