Mohammed Ahteram Hussain v. The State Of Telangana,
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5960, 6031 and 6080 of 2025 COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Petitions are arising out of Crime No.751 of 2025 of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad. Hence, all these criminal petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2.
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 6 in Crime No.751 of 2025 of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 3.
The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant's father late PV Kutumba Rao is the resident of Brindavan Colony in Sy.Nos.135, 137, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 159, 160 and 161 of Narsingi Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They are not sold the above mentioned subjected property to any one till date. The document No.2044/1967 is created by M.Pravmeela and M.Sinivas was fraudulent and it is fake document. Neither his father nor legal heirs did not executed any document. The main link
document and other documents AGPA Nos.8283/024 and 8284/2024 is created one, basing upon the documents they are tress passed and disturbing their possession and hence, this complaint and take necessary action. The Police Narsingi, without there being any prima facie enquiry and evidence registered a FIR No.751 of 2025, dated 16-04-2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) under the B.N.S Act. Now the case is under investigation.
4.
Heard Mr. S.Bhavani Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 5 in Crl.P.Nos.5960 and 6080 of 2025 respectively and Mr. S.Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crl.P.No.6039 of 2025 and Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners and others have sold the property to an extent of 900 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.159, situated at Narsingi Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through Registered sale deed dated 03.02.2025. When third party tried to interfere with the
said property, the purchaser of the said plot filed suit vide O.S.No.191 of 2025 on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cumXXV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar, seeking perpetual injunction and along with the said suit they also filed application vide I.A.No.60 of 2025 and the said Court granted ad-interim injunction on 10.04.2025 and the said adinterim injunction is still in force. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and will abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court and hence, prayed for anticipatory bail. 6.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have committed grave offence and the investigation is under progress. Therefore, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, there is every chance to influence the witnesses and to interfere with the investigation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 7.
Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that petitioners along with others have executed registered sale deed on 03.02.2025 in favour of the de-facto complainant in respect of the property to an extent of 900 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.159, situated at Narsingi
Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the purchaser filed suit vide O.S.No.191 of 2025 on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar, seeking perpetual injunction and the said Court granted ad-interim injunction on 10.04.2025 in I.A.No.60 of 2025 and it is still in force. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the de-facto complainant is the husband of defendant No.5 in O.S.No.191 of 2025. Even according to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the petitioners are not having any other criminal antecedents.
8.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 6, subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 6 are directed to surrender before the S.H.O., P.S.Narsingi, Cyberabad, on or before 13.05.2025 and on such surrender, they shall be enlarged on bail on thier executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), each with two sureties for a like sum each to his satisfaction.
(ii) On such release, petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 6 shall appear before the concerned S.H.O., on every Monday at 11-00 a.m. for a period of eight
(8) weeks or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.
(iii) After release, the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 6 shall not influence the witnesses or interfere with the investigation.
(iv) Petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 6 shall abide by the conditions stipulated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS and shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation.
9.
Accordingly, these criminal petitions are allowed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO Date: 07.05.2025 vsu