Abdul Kareem, v. The State Of Telangana

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15522 of 2025 DATE: 03.12.2025 Between:

Abdul Kareem .... Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

.... Respondent/Complainant

O R D E R

The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS praying this Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioneraccused No.1 in Crime No.215 of 2025 before the Chengomul Police Station, Vikarabad District. The case was initially registered for the offence punishable under Section 308(5) of BNS later Section 137(2) of BNS is added.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that, on 28.10.2025, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that the petitioner, under the guise of renewing a loan taken by the complainant and her husband, obtained their signatures on stamp paper. As both the complainant and her husband are illiterates, they were unaware that the document was being used to transfer their property into the name of the petitioner. Subsequently, on 27.10.2025, upon checking online records, they discovered that the property had indeed been transferred to the petitioner. Based on this report, the police registered a case against the accused for the alleged offences.

3.

Heard Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de‐facto complainant and her husband had in fact sold the property to the petitioner pursuant to an agreement of sale dated 13.10.2025, and subsequently, the property was registered in the name of the petitioner on 24.10.2025 before the Sub‐Registrar. He further contended that the sale deed

was executed by filing the document along with the photograph of the husband of the complainant before the Sub‐Registrar's office, thereby evidencing that the transaction was valid between the petitioner and the complainant's husband. He further submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case only to cause harm, and that the allegations of illegal grabbing were baseless, being founded merely on documents and that a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed had already been filed, and the criminal case was lodged only to pressurize the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the allegations against the petitioner were grave in nature, as the petitioner had allegedly taken advantage of the illiteracy of the complainant and her husband, obtained their signatures, and grabbed their property, thereby necessitating custodial interrogation for effective investigation.

6.

Upon considering the rival submissions and perusing the material on record, it is noted that the documents filed by the petitioner, as well as those produced by the complainant, indicated that there was a transaction between the petitioner and the complainant's husband, and that a civil case was already pending. The Court observed that it was within the jurisdiction of the civil court to determine whether the documents were forged or falsely obtained.

In such circumstances, the Court held that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not warranted and deemed it appropriate to grant pre‐arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to compliance with certain conditions:

i.

The petitioner shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Chengomul Police Station, Vikarabad District within two weeks from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release petitioner on bail, on his executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties, for the like sum each.

ii.

The petitioner shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and co-operate with the

Investigating Officer in investigating the case.

iii.

The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 09:00 a.m, and 05:00 p.m., till the filing of the charge sheet and thereafter, as and when required.

7.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 03.12.2025 SS

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15522 of 2025 Date: 03.12.2025 ss