Mohammed Raheem, v. State Of Telangana.
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13782 of 2025 ORDER:
Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 in Crime No.439 of 2025 of Sadasivpet Police Station, Sangareddy District, on bail, the present petition is filed. 2 .
The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the victim with accused No.1 was solemnized by using a fabricated and false Aadhaar card of the victim. Although the victim was a minor on the date of the marriage, her date of birth was deliberately altered to misrepresent her age. The petitioners are alleged to have aided accused No.1 in the commission of these acts. Consequently, a case was registered as Crime No.439 of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 115(2), 351(2)(3), 352, and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Sections 5 and 6 read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
3.
Heard Sri P. Srihari Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the allegations leveled against them and that the marriage between the victim and accused No.1 was an arranged marriage solemnized with the consent of the victim and the parents of the petitioners. Therefore, it was contended that no offence has been committed by the petitioners and they have not abetted accused No.1 in any manner. He further submitted that the petitioners were arrested on 05.10.2025 and have remained in judicial custody since then and that accused No.1 has already been granted anticipatory bail and that a substantial portion of the investigation has been completed. Therefore, prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition. 5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, contending that the allegations against the petitioners are severe in nature and that the investigation is still ongoing, with the charge sheet yet to be filed. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6.
In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 05.10.2025. As reflected in the remand case diary, prosecution witnesses LWs.1
to 18 have already been examined, including the investigating officer, and the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, the duration of incarceration, and the fact that accused No.1 has already been granted anticipatory bail, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
i.
The petitioners shall execute 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 learned Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special Mobile) at Sangareddy.
ii.
The petitioners 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 petitioners 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: 31.10.2025 SS
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13782 of 2025 Date: 31.10.2025 SS