The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of BNSS Act, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioners/Accused No.2 to 5 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. '14112024 dated 0911112024 on the file of SHO, PS lVudhole, Nirmal District, to abide by the condition or conditions that might be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar [VIamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1201 of 2ol25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is l-rled under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2O23 (for short tsNSSJ for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 5 in Crime No' 141 of 2024 before the Mudhole Police Station, Nirma'l Distriqt' registered for the offence punishable under Sections 1 18(1) read with 3(s) of BNS, 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Acl

2. The brief facts of the case are that on November g, 2024, Elme Khanderao, a 4O-year-old resident of Singangaon, lodged a complaint with the Tanoor Police Station, alleging that his son, Vishal, had fallen in love with Anzum, the niece of his friend Anwar. The couple had eloped on October 28, 2024, and had gotten married with the consent of their families. However, Anzum's family members, including her brother Mujju, mother Haleema, and father Shaik Gouse, opposed to the marriage and had been threatening Elme Khanderao and his family. On a 2 SKS.J Crl.P.No. t20l of 2025 November g,2024, Elme Khanderao' along with the village sarpanch, Jadav Maruthi, Jadav Sahebrao' and Jadav Sathya Narayana, went to Mudhole High School to discuss the issue with Anzum's family members' However' the meeting turned violent when allegedly' the petitioners and their accomplices attacked Elme Khanderao and his companions, injuring them mercilessly' The attackers also damaged the property of Elme Khanderao and his family members. Based on the compiaint lodged by Elme Khanderao, the police registered a case under Sections 118(1), r/w 3(2)(va) of the SC ST PoA Act' and are investigating the matter' Aggrieved thereby' this criminal petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri S'Ravi Kiran Reddy' learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon' learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent State' karned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 4. registration of crime against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law and bad in law, as the police registered the FIR without conducting a preliminary enquiry and are now 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No. t2O1 of 2025 attempting to arrest the petitioners without any evidence. He contended that the complaint is based on assumptions and presumptions, with no adduced evidence, and that tJle police have failed to follow the guidelines of issuing a 4l-A notice to the petitioners. He asserted that the petitioners are innocent, with no allegations against them, and are the sole breadwinners for their families, as such, prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition, granting the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners, stating that Section 1lS(1) of BNS, is a scheduled offence, and that there is no dispute of the fact that de facto complainalt beiongs to scheduled communiqr, therefore, the petition itself is not maintainable, as such, prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that with regard to the maintainability of petition, learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance on the judgment 4 SKS,J Crl-P.No- 12o1 of 2025 n rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of Indial whereunder, it was observed that when there is no pima facie evidence against the accused, so as to attract the scheduled offence, the relief of anticipatory bail can be granted to the accused, further' that while considering any application seeking pre-arrest bail, the High Court has to balance the two interests' i'e'' that the power is not used as to convert the jurisdiction into that under Section 438 of CPC but that it is used sparingly and such orders are made in very exceptional cases *here no prima facie offence is made out as shown in FIR' whereas, in the case on hand, it is to be noted that the allegation against the petitioners is that they indulged in the crime when A 1 attacked de facto complainant' Further' there is no dispute of the fact that de ..facfo complainant belongs to scheduled community, as Such, the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act was registered against the petitioners and other accused' Furthermore, Section 1 13(1) of BNS is scheduled offence' ' atR 2ozo sc 1036 l I I 7 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.l2Ol of 2025 In addition, the remand report would show that de 7. facto complainant was severely injured due to ttre alleged incident, therefore, it can be held that pima facie, there is assault ot de facto complainant, as such' there is no doubt that this petition is maintainable. Therefore, though learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment rendered in Prattvi Raj (supra) the same does not come to their aid' However, considering the fact that A1 was already granted bail by the trial Court, this Court deems it fit to direct the. petitioners to surrender before the trial Court and frle a bail petition. On such surrender and Iiling of bail petition, the trial Court is directed to consider the same.

8. With the above directions, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaleous applications, il any pending, shall stand closed. I To, SDi- P PADMANABHA ASSISTANT REGI R DY, //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhainsa i. iii" Si"ti"" ttouse Officer, 3. Two CCs to the puoli" "Mudhole 'iiosecutor' . Polic-e Station ' Nirmal District High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderab One CC ad [OUT] io iii s"*u Ravi Kiran Reddy, Advocate [oPUC] 4 5 Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:2110212025 ORDER CRLP.No.1201 ot 2025 1HE S 14 ,€ .J U 21 FEB zffi (\ a * Dt :-:,.' DISPOSING OF THE CRLP 4