✦ High Court of India · 27 Oct 2025

The High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 27 Oct 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
27 Oct 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,152 words

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bidarkar Gopal, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER I I i I i' i : 7I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I t a { t I t I } t : a ! : : J I I I I I I i t' I i I t l. u i l THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJAITA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1B1S4 of 2O2S ORDER: This criminal Petition is filed under Section 492 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha sanhita, 2o2s (for short .BNSS) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.1 in crime No.126 of 2o2s of Hussaini Alam police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109, L9L(2l1, 191(3), 115(2), SSl(2), 324(41, 329(3), 6l(2l,, 352 and Z9 read with Section 19O of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short .BNS).

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 24.o6.2o2s, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that her family has lived in Fatima colony, Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad for 3o years. [n front of their residence ries an open piece 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.l and others. On24.06.2025, when survey officials from the waqf Board had arrived to conduct a survey of the disputed land and while t]le husband of the 2 sKs,J Crl.P.to.13l54 of 2O25 complainant and the neighbours were speaking with the survey officials, accused 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 group attacked them with sticks and pelted stones with an intent to kill. 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 two 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 same, the police registered the case vide Crime No. L26 of 2025 for the above mentioned offences.

3. Heard Sri B. Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned 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 3 SKS,I Crl.P.Ito. 13154 of 2O25 misuse of authority by certain police officials and that Accused No.2 has already been arrested and is presently in judicial custody. [n contrast, Accused No.1 has been shown as absconding, although it is stated that he too sustained injuries at the hands of the complainant's family. He further submitted that the first anticipatory bail application frled by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court. He contended that t. 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 tllat 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 other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned 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 propert5r-related offences and that the petitioner is attempting to unlawfully encroach upon property belonging to the Waqf Board. In view 4 sKsl,J Crl.P.lfo.13154 of 2ol25 of the nature and gravity of the offences attributed to the petitioner, he further submitted the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition filed by the petitioner.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it is noted that the petitioner had earlier filed Crl.P.No.10387 of 2025 before this Court seeking anticipatory bail, and the same was dismissed by order dated 26.08.2025. In the said order, this Court observed that nine criminal cases had been registered against the petitioner. Although learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some of those cases were settled before the Lok Adalat, it was noted that out of the nine cases, seven had been closed and only . two remained pending. It was further observed that past criminal history alone cannot be treated as a conclusive ground for denial of anticipatory bail. However, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. It is now observed that there are no changed circumstances between the earlier bail petition and the present one. Further, the rowdy sheet was also opened g\ 5 sKs,J Crl.P.No.13l5.4 ol2ol25 against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner. There are no merits in this Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. \ To, SD/. P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6 sEcTtoN oFFICER

1. Thechief Judiciar Magistrate, at Nampaily Hyderabad 2. The station House officer, HussainiAram porice station, Hyderabad District.

3. One CC to Sri Bidarkar Gopat, Advocate tOpUCI 4' Two ccs to pyl,: prosecutor, High court for the State of rerangana at Hyderabad.(OUT)

5. Two CD Copies BJLB'PSL w i I I I t: I ! I I I I t HIGH COURT DATED:2711O12025 ORDER CRLP.No.13154 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED ../a' ),, \ r 19 EEI ?U5 '9 t r;>sDATctl (:O (:,\ ..ri.. . \

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments