The High Court · 2025

4. Mr. Mohd. Abdul Khaleel, S/o Mohd Abdul Jaleel, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Business, R:/o. H.No.12-2-36715, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.

5. Syed Arfat, S/o. Syed Azmath, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.12-2-369/4, Syed All Guda, Murad Ndlar, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.

6. Syed Mushtaq, S/o Syed Naseer, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o B- 86, Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 7- Chowlla Nagarjuna, S/o Chowlla Satyanarayana, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Flat No.303, Srinilli Enclave, Tirumala Hills, Golden temple, Venkateshwara Swamy, Puppalguda, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

8. Manuka Raju Yadav, S/o Sri M.Ramulu Yadav, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Business, Rt/o Plot Nos. 121 and 122, Flat No.401, JRT Marlin Apartment, Cyber Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad. AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. ...Petitioner/Accused Petition under Section 480 and 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court ryray be pleased to enlarge the petitioners/accused on bail in the event of their arrest by P S Narsingi in Crime No.90 of 2025. ..RespondenUComplainant --7 This Petit on .:;ming on for hearing, upon perusinJ: the: Me morandum of Grounds of Crinlrral retition and upon hearing the argun)ents; of Sri Anirudh N ,Advocate for tl e F:€ titioners and Sri Syed Yasar Mamrron, Arjr litional Public Prosecutor on bof all ;I the Respondent. The Gourt made the f :llowing: ORDER I l I I I I I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREE NTVAS RAO '- CRIMINAL PETITIO NNo .7a13 of 2025 - Order: This Criminal petition is Iiled by the petitioners/ accused Nos. 1 to 6, seeking anticipatory bail under Sections 4g0 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in connection with Crime No.9O of 2025 on the file of Narsingi police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the oflences punishable under Sections 42O,46a, 471, l2ob and 5O6 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and similarly, petitioner Nos.7 and g are not arraved as accused in the present case as on today.

2. Fleard Mr. Anirudh Nellikonda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additionai public Prosecutor appearing for respondent State.

3. Learned counsel for the petiLioners submits that petitioners/Accused Nos.l to 6 were added as Accusecl Nos.l to 6 in Cr. No.9O ol 2025 and petitioncr Nos.7 and g are not arrayed as accused in the present case as on today.

4. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the offence leveled against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 6 are punishable with an imprisonmen[ of less than seven ", \\' \ vears. I'11(l llh Lhe petitioner Nos.7 and 8 u',:re rloi arrayed as accuse(l ils ,) I date by the police, without follo" n-r8 tl-c mandatory proce clttt,::, ' ttrln'roning them to the Police StrLtiorl i -r connection u'ith r.h: rt ;.-t:l crime. l [: fr r' l'rcr submitted that the petitionc; s h t'r: approached 5. the Lt:a-rter V Aclditional Sessions Judge, Ranl:1a Rcd'l' Distnct at filed Anticipatory Bail applrc rtion vide L.B.N:,L11zLi tnd Crl.M.I' ''lr, 160 of 2025 and the learnel ficss ors 'Iudgc clismisr;: :l L re Anlicipatory Bail applicatic n lr:rs;i rg on lhc suiblnis.r;io;r'; nr:rcle by the learned Additiona Prrbl c Pt-osecutor beforc l ' rc ,' ottrt belorv that the Investigating Ofllce r alte red the oflencc lo 1(r7 of IPC though the Investigr'Ltinll O licer is not altere d t lic r Tcnce. The offences leveled again:i1 the I '( titioncrs are punisi-rrlrLl \'lth an imprisonment of less than ie\rrll \1( ars "[r. .i icl submissions made by the leattrt-.d c('l nscl for the 6. petitio rtrs rrt ltot disputcd by the learne l Ald t onnl Public Proscc u t r-l

7. 1-. 1' , r'i of the same, without going inro tlre r lerits of the c.lsc, r l-. s ( l rlr rt deems it appropriate to dire':t tlle I ctitioners to appe ar' .)c'', ) -it the investigation officer on or belbrt: 11 07 '2025' On srr.l' i: l)'lcarance of the petitioners, the In,estigat ng Officer is J directed to scrupulously follow the procedure contemplated under Section 4l-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, lg7 3 (Cr. P.C.)/ Section 35(3) of BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Biharl.

8. It is made clear that the petitioners shall cooperate with the Investigating Ofhcer for the investigation and make themselves available to him as and when required and also provide the information/ documents as sought by him to conclude the investigation.

9. If the petitioners fail to cooperate with the Investigating Ofhcer for invcstigation, the Investigating Ofhcer is at liberty to take action against them in accordance with law

10. Subject to the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. No costs As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed 1,-- //TRUE COPY// SD/- L. LAKSHMI BABU EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, L The Xlll Judicial First Class Magistrate Cyberabad at Rajendra nagar 2- The station House Officer, Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to SRI ANIRUDH N, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies qo-- ADK/gh HIGH COURT DATED:04107i','-025 ORDER CRLP.No.781ii of 2O25 /," C) (.) ,/;,, : i_! . ,,1ri ?il5 I *- \'..j I I I i I DISPOSINCi (;-IF THE CRLP t )a- z) 1