The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad … Respondent CRL.P.NO.15562 OF 2025 : Between : Syed Jahangir … Petitioner/A.2 And The State of Telangana, Rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, Jagadgirigutta Police Station, Medchal Malkajgiri District … Respondent - 2 - CRL.P.NO.15564 OF 2025 : Between : Shaik Kareem … Petitioner/A.3 And The State of Telangana, Rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, Medchal Malkajgiri District … Respondent CRL.P.NO.15565 OF 2025 : Between : Shaik Amer @ Shabaz … Petitioner/A.4 And The State of Telangana, Rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, Medchal Malkajgiri District … Respondent COMMON ORDER These criminal petitions are filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 in the respective criminal petitions seeking enlargement on bail in connection with Crime - 3 - No.796 of 2025 of Jagadgirigutta Police Station, Medchal- Malkajgiri District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 103(1) r/w. 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023) and under Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.08.2025 at 17:55 hours the complainant gave a complaint to the police stating that his family owns a G+4 building at Yellammabanda Crossroads, Jagadgirigutta. His late father, Syed Abdul Jabbar, had been running a restaurant named "Good Will Restaurant" in the same building for the past 20 years and after his father's demise, the complainant took over the management of the restaurant. He travelled daily from Erragadda to the restaurant in the morning and returned home at night after closing. On the day of incident, while the complainant was at the restaurant, Fazal-A.1 who was a regular customer and resident of Yellammabanda arrived with six others to have tea. An argument broke out among them, and they began shouting. Suddenly, one of the men, dressed in a white shirt and white pant, pulled out a knife and struck another man, who was wearing a black shirt, on the back of his head. The victim collapsed immediately. Following this, A.1 and two others stabbed the man in the black shirt multiple times with knives. - 4 - The victim died on the spot and was found lying in a pool of blood. Two individuals who had accompanied the deceased fled away from the scene after witnessing the attack. Fazal and three others then confirmed the victim was dead and escaped in an auto-rickshaw. The deceased appeared to be around 35 years old. Based on this complaint, police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri P.Vikasraj, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the criminal petitions and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are in jail from 06.08.2025. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Further, it is a recent crime, even though charge sheet is filed there is no possibility of completing trial in near future and the prolonged custody would deny the liberty of petitioners. As such, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioners by imposing stringent conditions.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that there is previous crime history against - 5 - the petitioners and they have committed a brutal murder. Though the deceased is also a rowdy sheeter, the manner in which the offence is committed is very brutal. Hence, in view of the previous crime history and the nature of offence, the petitioners are not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss these criminal petitions.

6. Considering the submissions made and a perusal of material on record, admittedly, the petitioners have criminal history. A.1 is involved in five cases, A.2 is involved in one case and A.3 is involved in three cases and no other case is pending against A.4. Petitioners are in jail from 06.08.2025 i.e., for the last four months and entire investigation is already completed and charge sheet is also filed even according to Additional Public Prosecutor. It seems there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. Considering the same this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioners/A.1 to A.4 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIV - 6 - Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. ii. The petitioners/A.1 to A.4 respectively shall surrender their passports, if any, before the trial court. If they do not possess a passport, they shall file an affidavit to that effect. iii. The petitioners/A.1 to A.4 respectively shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission. iv. The petitioners/A.1 to A.4 shall appear before the trial Court on each and every adjournment. v. The petitioners/A.1 to A.4 shall not involve themselves in any criminal activity during the period of bail. vi. The petitioners/A.1 to A.4 shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 483(2) of BNSS. vii. If any of the conditions are violated the prosecution is at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail.

7. Accordingly, all the criminal petitions are allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :11.12.2025 Rds - 7 - THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.15567, 15562, 15564 & 15565 OF 2025 DATE :11.12.2025 Rds