V. Nageswar Rao v. The State Of Telangana,
[ 3385 I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF NOVETVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTTCE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13819 OF 2025 Between V. Nageswar Rao, S/o. Ramaswamy, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Former Advocate, R/o. H.No. 1-2-58, No.2 Basthi Yellandu, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.
..PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Telangana,, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telanagana at Hyderabad, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition unOei Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the ftilemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner /Accused in the event of his arrest in F.l.R No.11 5 of 2025, dated 04.08.2025, pending on the file of the Kothagudem I Town Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem, pending disposal of the Criminal petition and to pass.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13819 of 2ol25 ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner who is arrayed as accused in FIR.No.llSl2O2S before the Kothagudem I Town Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 336(3), 338, 339 and 34O of BNS.
2.
The brief facts of the case are that on August 4, 2025, the Chief Administrative Oflicer reported a complaint prompting a request for action on the forgery alleging that on May 30, 2025, at the District Court complex. Bhadradri Kothagudem, accused V.Nagesu,ara Rao (ex-advocate) allegedly forged signatures of advocates G.Ram Murthy and K.Mahesh Anand. On receipt of the complainant, a case was registered against the accused for the offences as alleged.
3.
Heard Sri Mohd Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for petit-ioner, and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has no connection with the alleged forged signatures on the C.As filed by the clerk. He contended that the complaint, which was filed at the instance of the learned District Judge, is said to be motivated by mala fide intention to harass the petitioner for lodging a complaint against the appointment of Mr. Mendu Rajamallu as Special Judicial Magistrate. He further contended that the FIR was registered mechanically, without application of mind, as the !l allegations do not disclose any ingredients of offences l under Sections 336(3), 338, 339, or 34O of the BNS. He i asserted that the petitioner neither forged any document I for cheating nor possessed or used any forged document as I genuine.
He lamented that the complaint was filed out of vengeance after the petitioner sought to obtain certified I I I I I I copies of Advocate Commissioner's reports. While advocating that the petitioner, having no criminal I I I antecedents, being a law-abiding citizen, undertakes to I cooperate with the investigation, he prayed the Court to I grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this II I criminal petition.
I!I i *I n i !
i / / i :
t
5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the allegations against the petitioner are of a serious nature, which rri'ould require his custodial interrogation. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 6Flaving regard to the rival submissions and the material on record, it is noted that the investigation is still in progress and the complaint contains specific set of allegations against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail at this stage. There are no merits in this Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7.
A<:cordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
SD/- B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Prl. District Judge, Bhadradr.i Kothagudem
2. The Station House Officer, Kothagudem I Town Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem.
3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) .i- 4. one cc to sRl MOHD ISLAMUDD|N ANSARI Advocate [opUC] W 5. Two CD Copies
t HIGH COURT DATED:1 011112025 .:T <\.i',: ':: r..
! i rE v r?.i 'a:'
t', I I l,l[IJ ?n25 -aa:
ORDER
,3Ir4 rC ,-n ill CRLP.No.13819 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED \T \\