Bhaggu Phanish Naidu v. The State of Telangana & Ors

#2. Smt. Gudupalli Bhargavi, Wo Gudupalli Srikanth, Age 27 years, Occ- House wife, Vinayaka Nagar, Neredmet, Malkajgiri-7 5692007 47 . ... Respondents/Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.6 in Cr.No.291 of 2026 Neredmet Police station, Malkalgiri Commissionerate for the offences punishable U/sec. 294(b), in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including the arrest of the Petitioner/Accused No.6 in Cr.No.291 ot 2026 Neredmet Police station, Malkajgiri Commissionerate for the offences punishable U/sec. 294(b), pending disposal of the above quash petition, in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Veera Babu Gandu, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I I ! ! i l i 1 l t I t I I I I I I j ! I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OT |ELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREI] iIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.580l of i026 Date: 11.04.2026 BeLrveen: Bhaggu Phanish Naidu Petitior :r/Accused No.6 AND The State oiTelangana and another. Respondents Order: This Criminal Petition has been Iiled undc - Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 202 I (for short 'the BNSS') by the petitioner/ accused No.6 seekirr , to quash the proceedings in Crime No.291 of 2026 of NerednLr t Police Station, Malkajgiri Commissionerate, registered for the of i nces punishable under Section 2a9(bl of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sar hitha, 2023 (for short 'the BNSJ.

#2. With the consent of both the learned couns:1, this Criminal Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

#3. Heard Mr. Vcera Babu Gandu, learned :ounsel lor the petitioneno and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, I,: rrned Additional Public Prosccutor, appearing for respondent No.1. )

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. There are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner. Even according to the Remand Case Diary, the only allegation against the petitionei/ accused No.6 is that he advised the other accused not to appear before the police station and assured them that he would arrange bail for them. The said allegation does not attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 29a(Q of the BNS. The olfences Ieveled against the pe[itioner are punishable with imprisonmcnt up to seven years. However, the Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Biharr, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam v. The State of Jharkhand & another (Crl.A.No.2207 of 20231 dated 31.07.2023, and also the circular issued by this Court in ROC.No. 1399 /SOl2023 dated 09.08.2023, is proceeding with the investigation, which is contrary to law. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law. r(2014) 8 SCC 273 i i I I i I 3

#5. Per contro, the learned Additional l -tblic Prosecutor submitted that there is conspiracy between the p e titioner/ erccuscd No.6 and other accused and that the Investigat ng Ofhcer issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to accus(.( Nos.4 and 5 and the lnvestigaring Officer will follow the same pr: :edure in respect of petitioner/ accused No.6 also and he is enti: :d to submit h is t I grievance / reply before the Investigating Officer ir tng u,ith relevant documents. Whether the pe[itioner has commii ed the oflence or not, has to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially u,hen the investigation is under progres ;.

#6. Having considered the rival submissio : ; made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the Rema rd Case Diary, it reveals that lhe offences leveled against petiticr er/accused No.6 are punishable with imprisonment of less than r;, according to the learned Additional public ven years. Even Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer has already issued notice ur of the BNSS accused Nos.4 and 5. In vi: 1er Section 35(3) v of the same, petitioner/ accused No.6 is entitled to submit his I :ply to the notice by enclosing all relevant documents. The Invet; igating Offrcer is further directed to scrupulously follow th t procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, ll )23.

#7. Accordrngly, the Criminal Petition is dispose I of 4 Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shali stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECT!ON OFFICER To,

#1. The I Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-l Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

#2. The Station House Officer, Neredmet Police Station, Malkaigiri 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

#4. One CC to Sri Veera Babu Gandu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies ABK /KA .,j_.€-*., I I TIE SIA l I 2 APH 2026 F 6) //. < //\/ie ,'/J o,) ,',..\,. \3.\i HIGH COURT OATED: 1710412026 ORDER CRLP.No.5801 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION @{- 1Y'