Langakala Arjun Reddy 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.17597 of 2025 DATE : 29.12.2025 Between:

Sri Langakala Arjun Reddy.

...Petitioner/Accused No.3

AND The State of Telangana Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana At Hyderabad

...Respondent

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed before this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.3 in FIR No.536 of 2025 before the Rajendranagar Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 329(3), 324(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2), r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS').

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant, lodged a report before the police on 16.05.2025 stating that, he is the lawful owner and possessor of Plot No.188, admeasuring 200 Sq.yds situated in S.Y.No.149, Sai Baba Nagar Colony, Kismathpur, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is further alleged that the de-facto complainant is in the continuous possession of the said plots. On 12.05.2025, accused Nos.1 and 6 along with their henchmen unlawfully entered the land and attempted to take possession of the said plot, and the adjacent plots. The de-facto complainant came to know that the petitioner herein had fraudulently obtained a Registered Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney ('AGPA') bearing No.3651/2010 dated 24.12.2010 from B. Sathi Reddy and B.

Papi Reddy and on the basis of the same, they brought into existence a registered sale deed bearing No.582/2025 dated 08.01.2025 in favour of Mohammed Asifuddin and Shabad Tajuddin and further stated that the said documents are suspicious in nature, as such requested the police for taking necessary action. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police registered case against the petitioner for the offences as alleged.

Criminal Petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

3.

Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3 and that the allegation against the petitioner is that he acted as a mediator for a registered Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney ('AGPA'), which was executed in the year 2010 and that the petitioner has allegedly received some amount for executing the said AGPA. In fact, the petitioner herein is neither a mediator in respect of the subject property nor has he executed any AGPA in favour of accused No.2. There is no such allegation against the petitioner herein that he forged any document pertaining to the said plot and that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigating authority. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest 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 there are serious allegations levelled against the petitioner and that the petitioner knowingly acted as a mediator in respect of the said AGPA. At this stage, granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6.

In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.3 and the allegations against the petitioner is that at the time of execution of AGPA, he acted as a mediator and allegedly received an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, except for the said allegation, there are no such allegations against the petitioner to show that the petitioner fabricated any of the documents pertaining to the said property. Further, as the investigation is based on the documentary evidence, custodial interrogation is not required. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to compliance of the following conditions: i.

The petitioner shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Rajendranagar Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, within two weeks from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release him on bail, on petitioner 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 Monday 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: 29.12.2025 SRK

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17597 of 2025 Date: 29.12.2025 SRK