The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by Station House Officer, Polie,e Station Asifnagar Through Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad' ...RE.P.NDENT 2. Gulzar Ahmed, S/o. Late Abdul Qayyum, Age: 77 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. H.No.16-7-392/1, Near Sahifa Masjid, Azampura, Hyderabad, Telangana. .RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in the event of his arrest in the F.l.R. No. 280 ol 2024, dt. 28.08.2024 on the file of the Police Station, Chaderghat, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. SHAHANA PARVEEN, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri. Syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'l and of None appeared forthe Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HOI|OI'RABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJAITA CRIIIINAL PEf,ITION Ito.1O128 of 2o/25 This Criminal Petition is frled under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNSS') for grant of pre-arrest bail to tl.e petitioners, who is arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.28O of 2024 of Chaderghat Police Station, HYderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the de-fado complainant, lodged a report before the police stating that he is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of six plots purchased through registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.1128 and 3868 of 2O15. Accused No'1, who resides in the locality of the complainant, approached him claiming to be a realestatebrokerandofferedtohelphiminsellingtheplots' Over the following weeks, he gained the trust of the complainant and frequently visited his home. Taking advantage of the vulnerableconditionsofthecomplainanti'e',beingasenior citizen recovering from heart surgery, accused No' 1 allegedly stole original property documents, ID proofs, and other personal 2 SICin' Crl.P.tIo. 10128 of Zrr5 papers from his residence. When questioned, the accused denied any involvement. A missing document report was liled, but the police were unable to trace the originals. Later, while preparing to sell the propert5r using certilied copies, the complainant discovered that t]le plots had already been sold by accused No. I to accused No.2 through forged Special power of Attorney (SPA) documents. Upon obtaining certified copies of SPA documents from SRO Azampura, tJre complainant found that the executant was an impersonator who forged his signature, thumb impression, and photograph. The fraudulent SPA was executed in the presence of the petitioners. Based on this said complaint, police registered a case vid.e Crime No.28O /2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 3OS, 338, 340(2), 319(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNSJ.

3. Heard Ms. Shahana parveen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Syed yasar Mamoon, learned Additional public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. l.earned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely and unnecessarily implicated in I 1 I 3 sKsl crlP.tro.10l28 of2025 the present case. As per the FIR and the material on record' their only alleged involvement is that tJ:ey stood as attesting witnesses during the registration of the purported fraudulent Special Power of Attorney (SPA) at the Sub-Registrar Offrce' Azampura. The petitioners are completely innocent and had no role in any forgery, impersonation, or criminal conspiracy' He furthersubmittedt}rataccusedNo.l,takingadvantageofhis prior acquaintance witl- the petitioners, coerced them into accompanying him under the pretext of routine registration work and offered Rs.5,000/- each, claiming he required witnesses for a standard real estate transaction' At no point were the petitioners informed that tlle transaction involved impersonation or forged documents' They were led to believe that the executant of the SPA was the lawful owner and that the registration was legitimate. The petitioners had never met the complainant prior to the incident and were unaware of the naturre and legal implications of the documents they attested' Therefore, he prayed ttre Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition'

5. On the ottrer hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned d 4 sKsr, Crl.P.[o.lOl2A of2oi 5 stating that the allegations against counsel for the petitioner, the petitioners are of a serious nature, involving criminal conspiracy and active participation in the impersonation and forgery of propertSr documents. It was submitted t]lat the petitioners, in collusion with Accused No.l, played a role in the fraudulent execution of documents, thereby facilitating the illegal transfer of valuable immovable properties and he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In light of the submissions made by both Iearned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the allegations against the petitioners pertain to their role as witnesses to forged documents and acts of impersonation. Even according to the petitioners, a-lthough they were not willing to sign as witnesses to the said documents, accused No.l allegedly threatened them and olfered a sum of Rs.S,0OO/- each, which indicates that they signed tfie documents without being aware of their contents. Despite the alleged threat, the pedtioners did not report the matter to the police nor did they lodge any complaint. Therefore, at tiis stage, it cannot be conclusively stated that the petitioners were unaware of the impersonation involved. Considering the 5 st(s/, Ctl.P.I{o. lO 128 of 2025 seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/. U.SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY" ON OFFICER I i I To,

1. The Vlll Addl. chief Judicial Magistrate Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Chaderghat, Hyderabad District. 3. One CC to Sri. SHAHANA PARVEEN, Advocate [OPUC]' 4. Two CCs to pUBLtC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]- TTS/PSL

5. Two CD CoPies w 'fl'lE $A ? t JAN 2026 fJ )- * 7 z. r-. 'f( I : i I i I I I I I I I ! I I I I I i I I HIGH COURT DATED: 26lgA2A25 ORDER CRLP.No.fil?:B ot 2O2S CRIMTNAL PETTTION IS DIS{UISSED ".*d&k*