Sai Kumar Alias Kandhi Saikumar v. The State Of Telangana,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.9412 OF 2026 DATE : 02.07.2026 Between:

Sai Kumar @ Kandhi Sai Kumar

...Petitioner/Accused No.11

AND The State of Telangana.

...Respondent

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

2.

The petitioner is arrayed as the accused No.11 in FIR No.1253 of 2025 on the file of Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 336(2) and 338 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNS"). 3.

Heard Mr.E.V.Pushpa Vardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mahmood, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

4.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that a report alleging that accused Nos. 1 to 9 had fabricated false documents in respect of land bearing Survey Nos. 373 and 375 of Chandanagar Village, which had been earmarked for a Community Hall and a public Park. On the basis of the said report, the respondent police registered the present crime and commenced investigation.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, along with members of the Jai Bheem Youth Association, had, in fact, lodged a report on 28.10.2025 regarding the alleged illegal activities relating to the subject property. It is submitted that the petitioner was not initially named as an accused. However, during the course of investigation, on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of the other accused recorded in the remand report, wherein it was alleged that a sum of Rs.28.50 lakhs had been paid to the petitioner and other accused, he came to be arrayed as an accused in the present crime.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations against the petitioner are wholly baseless and devoid of any independent corroborative material. It is contended that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of the co-accused, who have falsely named him with an intention to shift the blame and implicate him in the commission of the alleged

offences. It is further submitted that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner regarding the alleged fabrication or execution of the disputed documents.

5.3. Learned counsel also submits that the General Secretary of the Jai Bheem Youth Association, against whom substantially similar allegations have been levelled, approached this Court by filing Criminal Petition No. 7094 of 2026 seeking anticipatory bail. This Court, by order passed therein, granted anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions. He submits that the allegations against the present petitioner stand on the same footing and the petitioner is willing to cooperate fully with the investigation, shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer whenever required, and undertakes to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. On the principle of parity, it is therefore prayed that the petitioner may also be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 6.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing the petition, submits that the petitioner's involvement surfaced during the course of investigation and that there are specific allegations against him. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that the petitioner stands on substantially the same footing as the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 7094 of 2026. Nevertheless,

it is contended that the investigation is still in progress and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

8.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner seeks parity with the relief granted by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 7094 of 2026. It is evident from the material presently available that the petitioner's name did not figure in the original report and that his implication appears to have arisen during the course of investigation on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of the co-accused. At this stage, except the allegation that the petitioner received an amount of Rs.28.50 lakhs, there is no specific allegation attributing to him any direct role in the alleged fabrication or execution of the disputed documents. 9.

It is well settled that the principle of parity is an important consideration while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. Where the role attributed to an accused is substantially similar to that of another co-accused who has already been granted bail, the Court ought to maintain consistency in the exercise of its judicial discretion unless distinguishing circumstances exist.

10.

In the present case, the petitioner stands on substantially the same footing as the co-accused who has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The respondent has also fairly conceded the similarity in the nature of allegations. No distinguishing circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court warranting a different view. Furthermore, the petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any condition that may be imposed.

11.

In the aforesaid circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a fit case for exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction to grant the relief of anticipatory bail, subject to conditions to ensure his availability for investigation and to safeguard the interests of the prosecution.

12.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:

(A) The petitioner/Accused No.11 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad on 16.07.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release him on bail on execution of 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 said officer.

(B) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of his release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects.

(C) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation. (D) The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (E) The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (F) Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings before the court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law. 14.

It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory

bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. __________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 02.07.2026 mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.9412 OF 2026 DATE : 02.07.2026 mmr