The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of arguments of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing- the- sri B.Gopal , Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. syed Yasar Mamoon' learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent-state' - The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HOIIOI'RABLT SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMII{AL PEf,ITIOIT !Io.1O387 of 2O2S ORI'ER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short tsNSSJ for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.l in Crime No. 126 of 2025 of Hussaini Alam Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 1O9, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 351(2), 324(4]1, 329(3), 6l(21,352 and.79 read with Section l9O of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 lfor short tsNS).

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 24.06.2025, the de-fado complainant lodged a complaint stating that her family has lived in Fatima Colony, Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad for 3O years. In front of their residence lies an open pier:e of land, the ownership of which has been under dispute for the past two months involving the family of the complainant, the Waqf Board, accused No.1 and others. On 24.06.2025, when survey oflicials from the Waqf Board had arrived to conduct a survey of the disputed land and while the husband of the complainant and the neighbours were speaking with the survey offir:ials, accused I 2 SKSr", CrLP.IIo.1O3E7 of 2o[26 \ No.l, accompanied with accused Nos.2 to 5 and others, arrived at the scene and began using abusive and filthy language. When her husband questioned their behavior, the g1oup attacked them with sticks and pelted stones with an intent to kiU. They also trespassed into the house of the complainant. As a result of the assault, the complainant, her sons, her husband, and their neighbour sustained bleeding injuries. Additionally, the assailants damaged trvo two-wheelers and they further issued threats to her husband and intimidated the entire family, clearly intending to eliminate them to facilitate illegal possession of the land. Based on the sarne, ttre police registered the case vide Crime No. L26 of 2025 for the above mentioned offences

3. Heard Mr. B. Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional hrblic. Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. karned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned crimes through the alleged misuse of authority by certain police officials and that Accused No.2 has already been arrested and is presenfly in judicial 3 sl(s,' Crl.P.IIo. 10387 of 2.0/25 custody. In contrast, Accused No.l has been shown as absconding, although it is stated that he too sustained injuries at the hands of the complainant's family. He further subrnitted that the first anticipatory bail application liled by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court. He contended that some of the previous cases involving the petitioner have already been settled, while others are either pending adjudication or have been quashed. He further contended that the past history of the petitioner alone cannot be a valid ground for denial of bail in the present matter and prayed the court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the ottrer hand, the learned Adclitional public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the rearned counsel for the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner is involved in as many as nine criminal cases and that a rowdy sheet has been opened against him, indicating a consistent pattern of involvement in both bodily and property-related offences and that the petitioner is attempting to unrawfully encroach upon property belonging to the waqf Board. In view of the nature and gravity of tlle offences attributed to the petitioner, he further submitted the petitioner is not entitled to I l I 1 l I i I I I I I t I I ! i i . 1 ,l I : I i i I I I I T4 -___-_/, 4 81(8r., Crl.P.IIo. 1O3E7 ol 2{t25 the relief of anticipatory bail and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition filed by the petitioner.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that nine criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner. Although the learned counsel for ttre petitioner submitted that some of these cases were settled before the Lok Adalat, it is noted that out of the nine cases, seven have been closed and only two remain pending. Howevir, since this is an application for anticipatory bail, past criminal history alone cannot be treated as a conclusive ground for denial of bail. Nonetheless, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. : I i i : i : i ; t: i I I I li:!il ;l SD/. V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Vlll Metropolitan Magistrate, cyberabad at Rajendranagar I //'h"l i

2. The station House officer, Hussain Alam police station, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Sri B.Gopal, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.tOuTl i

5. Two CD Copies 6 The Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampalty, Hyderabad. \ GH/psl \w I I I I i i I HIGH COURT DATED i2610812025 \ 0 I I , I ORDER CRLP.No.10387 ol 2025 1HE SI,q Ro () 22 t{[U $ .z_mr * o,n.Soar,- -d .i. DISMISSING THE CRL.PETITION. c\ cps'lr ffi"