CRLP/13799/2026 of Mohammed Sayeed, Vs The State of Telangana on 1 September 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No. 569 of 2026 of Rajendranagar Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(2), 338, 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 13799 of 2026

3. Heard Mr. Md. Saleem Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1-State.

4.1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that, on 12.05.2026, Respondent No.1/de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing Plot Nos.76 and 77 in Sy.Nos.96/7 and 96/8, respectively, each plot admeasuring 200 square yards and together measuring 400 square yards, situated at Narsa Reddy Colony, Bandlaguda Jagir Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is stated that the said property was purchased by him from its original owner, C. Venkata Reddy, under a registered sale deed dated 11.03.2002. Subsequently, Plot No.76 was sold to Mohammed Abdul Aleem Siddiqui under a registered sale deed dated 25.05.2013. It is alleged that Accused No.1, with an intention to grab the subject property, namely Plot No.77 in Sy.Nos.96/7 and 96/8, admeasuring 200 square yards, fraudulently created an unregistered notarized agreement of sale dated 23.08.1986 by forging the signature of the original owner.

4.2. It is further alleged that, relying upon the said purportedly fraudulent agreement of sale, Accused No.1 executed a registered gift settlement deed dated 25.10.1999 in favour of her brother, who is Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2. Thereafter, Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 executed a registered gift settlement deed dated 05.09.2011 in favour of his wife, who is Petitioner

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 13799 of 2026

No.2/Accused No.3. On the strength of the aforesaid documents, the accused are stated to have instituted a civil suit in the year 2013 seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed standing in favour of the de facto complainant. It is further alleged that the accused attempted to alienate the subject property in favour of third parties with an intention to derive wrongful gain. Based on the said complaint, the present crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the complaint arises out of a longstanding civil dispute relating to the title and possession of the subject property and that the criminal proceedings have been initiated after several decades, during the pendency of the civil proceedings, with the sole intention of exerting pressure upon the petitioners. It is contended that, even if the allegations contained in the complaint are taken at their face value, the dispute essentially concerns rival claims with regard to the genuineness, validity, and legal effect of documents relating to the immovable property. The matter, therefore, is predominantly documentary in nature and is substantially dependent upon documentary and public records.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that, in such circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is neither necessary nor warranted. It is also submitted that Accused No.1 has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.8227 of 2026, vide order dated 11.06.2026, and that the present petitioners stand on the same footing and are entitled to

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 13799 of 2026

similar relief on the principle of parity. The petitioners undertake to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On the above grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition, contending that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners and that their physical presence may be necessary for the purpose of conducting an effective investigation. It is further submitted that, in the event of grant of anticipatory bail, there is a likelihood that the petitioners may not cooperate with the investigation. On the said grounds, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioners and Respondent No.1/de facto complainant are asserting rival claims of title and interest over the same subject property. The allegations against the petitioners arise principally out of the execution and subsequent reliance upon the registered gift settlement deeds said to have been executed in their favour, and the rival claims in respect of the title to the subject property are also the subject matter of civil proceedings. It is further relevant to note that Accused No.1, who is alleged to have executed the foundational document in question, has already been

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 13799 of 2026

granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. The present petitioners, who are the beneficiaries under the subsequent registered gift settlement deeds, stand in a substantially similar position, subject, of course, to the specific allegations and material attributed to each of them.

9. While the principle of parity cannot, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to anticipatory bail, it is a relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court, in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, has emphasised that the power to grant anticipatory bail is discretionary and is required to be exercised on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case. The Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, has reiterated that the relief of anticipatory bail is intended to safeguard personal liberty while, at the same time, leaving the investigating agency free to conduct a lawful and effective investigation.

10. In the present case, the allegations substantially arise from documents concerning the title and transfer of the subject immovable property. The petitioners have expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and there is no material placed before this Court, at this stage, to demonstrate that their custodial interrogation is indispensable for the purpose of a fair and effective investigation. At the same time, the grant of pre-arrest protection cannot be understood as conferring immunity from

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 13799 of 2026

investigation or as restricting the investigating agency from questioning the petitioners or taking such steps as are otherwise permissible in law. The Supreme Court has specifically clarified that an order granting anticipatory bail does not curtail the lawful powers of the police to conduct investigation.

11. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the allegations, the predominantly documentary character of the dispute, the pendency of the civil proceedings concerning the subject property, the grant of anticipatory bail to Accused No.1 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, and the principle of parity, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. At the same time, the legitimate requirements of investigation have to be preserved. The balance between the petitioners' right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the investigating agency's right to conduct a fair and effective investigation can adequately be maintained by imposing appropriate conditions.

12. Accordingly, without in any manner interfering with or circumscribing the statutory powers and prerogatives of the investigating agency, this Court is of the considered view that it would be just and appropriate to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to such conditions as are necessary to secure their cooperation with the investigation.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 13799 of 2026

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions:

(A) The petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Rajendranagar Police Station, Hyderabad, on or before 16.09.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest, the Station House Officer shall release the petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 on bail on execution of 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 the said Officer.

(B) Petitioner No. 1/Accused No. 2 shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Saturday between 10:00 AM to 03:00 PM, for a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of his release on bail or until filing of the final result, whichever is earlier. (C) The petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 shall remain available for interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and shall extend full cooperation with the Investigating Officer.

(D) The petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 13799 of 2026

(E) The petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 shall furnish their complete residential addresses, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any changes therein.

(F) The petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall they tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(G) Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioners liable to appropriate proceedings before the Court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

14. It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 01.09.2026 svl