The High Court · 2025

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/Accused No.2 and direct the P.S. Sangareddy Town, Sangareddy to release the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest pertaining to Cr.No.388/2025 ol P.S. Sangareddy Town, Sangareddy, pending enquiry and Trial. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mohd Muzaffer Ullah Khan, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER I i ! I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 16787 OF 2()25

29.r2.2025 Between : Mustafa Basitl.r And The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad Petitioner/ Accuscd No. 2 .. Respondent/Complainant : ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/ Accused No.2 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.388 of 2025 of Sangareddy 'fown Police Station, Sangareddy. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 3 1 8 [4), 336 (3), 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2O23.

2. The facts of the case are that on 74.10.2025, the de-facto complainant-L. Veerajun Recldy who is Superintendent of the L* 2 Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy lodged a complaint stating that he received a representation from Sri Shaik Fareed and Smt. Nagamani along u,ith documents stated to be orders in O.S.No.12I of 2024 on thc file ol Il Addl. District and Sessions Court, Sangareddy and O.S.No. 16O of 2024 on t}:re hle of Addl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Sangareddy. After verifying the concerned records, it is found that no injunction or status quo order was passcd by thc Hon'blc Court in both the cases, only urgent notice to the defendants was issued and the C.A. numbers mentioned in the documcnts are not found in the records. It is further stated that the documents also have fake court seals and a forged signature. Hence he requested to take necessary action. Basing on the above complaint, the Police registered a case in Cr.No.388 of 2025 for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Mohd. Muzaferrullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the complaint it is nowhere stated that petitioner forged, fabricated, altered or tampered with any judicial document. The petitioner is an advocate practicing irr civil, criminal and constitutional courts including this Court. Petitioner had no . .:):.:r:;4. .:!-i.y, 'r' 3 knowledge about the alleged fraud or fabricaLion of documents more so judicial documents until registration of crime. He further contended that the notice attached with the alleged fabricated order contains the signature alleged to have been signed by the petitioner but in fact he has neither signed any of the alleged notice nor it stated about any status quo order. In fact two notices were used with two different dates with two different signatures of which neither of the signatures bear the original signature o[ the petitioner. The signature on the alleged forged document is visibly different from those on the petitioner's vakalat and affidavit. He further submitted that some other persons have conspired and committed this crime and falsely implicated the petitioner in this case. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The petitioner has forged, impersonated and fabricated the court records. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary to find out involvement of other persons in this crime. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition. \ 4 r1

6. Considering the submissions made by both counsel and perusal of the material on record, the contention of petitioner is that he is arrayed as A.2 and A. I !s already granted anticipatory bail by this Court and there is no material to show that petitioner herein fabricated thc said document and he had already sent signature on vakalat and the letter head to the Truth Labs which gave a report stating that both the signatures are not one and the same and the be neficiary is A. 1 and there is no such benefit under the said proccedings to the petitioner, whereas the alleged communication is on the letter head of the petitioner herein to the Tahsil officc and the report of the Truth Labs cannot considered at this stage, as, such comparison is basing on the Photostat copies which cannot be done according to the settled principles of law. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner, lre is not entitled for bail and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand cl<lsed. /I Sd/. K. MADHAVI _;- ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate' Sangareddy 2. The station House fficer, Sangareddy Town porice station, Sangareddy District c-Ld-

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Mohd Muzaffer Ullah Khan, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies-ez HIGH COURT SKS, J DATED: 2911212025 I () 1 HE srn 1 J ir 71126 t On.- * I I ORDER CRLP.No.16787 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION Jrs ttlrlza