CRLP/13310/2026 of Bandi Reddy Surender, Vs The State of Telangana, on 24 August 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No.9 of 2025 on the file of Keesara Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 336(3), 338, 340(2), 316(2), 318(4) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

3. Heard Ms.K.Gayatri, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner/accused No.3, along with accused Nos.1 and 2, conspired to execute and submit forged documents before the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TGRERA). It is alleged that the accused forged the complainant’s signatures on project declarations, affidavits, allotment formats, and other statutory records, thereby falsely representing the de facto complainant as the proprietor of “SRR DEVELOPERS.” It is further alleged that the petitioner facilitated the creation of forged bank-account details and the registration of the project with TGRERA. In particular, the prosecution alleges that the petitioner/accused No.3 received an amount of Rs.50,000/- from accused Nos.1 and 2 for carrying out the alleged forgery and, thereby, actively participated in the commission of the offences.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the police report and that his alleged role subsequently came to light on the basis of the statement of a co-accused. She further submits that the allegations against the petitioner that he fabricated or forged the alleged documents are wholly without basis. According to learned counsel, the petitioner is a private employee who merely submitted before the concerned authority the documents that had been provided by the other accused. It is contended that there is no incriminating material demonstrating the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offences.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that earlier the petitioner, along with accused Nos.1 and 2, was remanded before the learned Magistrate, who declined to send them to judicial custody. The learned Magistrate consequently directed the accused to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties and to appear before the Investigating Officer every Monday. The said order was challenged by the Investigating agency/complainant before the Sessions Court. By order dated 28.07.2026, the Sessions Court partly allowed the challenge and set aside the direction requiring the accused to furnish personal bonds with two sureties and the direction to appear before the Station House Officer (SHO) investigating agency. Aggrieved by the said order, and as apprehending arrest at the hands of the police, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 5.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, pursuant to the directions of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner appeared before the SHO and cooperated with the investigation until the said order was set aside by the Sessions Court. It is contended that the Sessions Court, while passing the impugned order, failed to properly consider the legal principles governing cancellation of bail. According to learned counsel, the order was passed without examining whether there had been any misuse of the liberty granted to the petitioner or whether any supervening circumstances existed warranting interference with the protection earlier granted. Learned counsel further placed reliance on authorities in Siddharth Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh and Another1, Himanshu Sharma Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh2 and Amarnath and Others Vs.State of Haryana and Another3 and it is submitted that an order concerning cancellation of bail falls within the scope of an interlocutory order and, therefore, a revision against such an order could not be filed. It is further submitted that, even in matters concerning cancellation of bail, the Court without considering the essential circumstances have arisen warranting cancellation of such protection passed the order. Learned counsel emphasizes that the personal liberty of an individual must receive due consideration and that the necessity for custodial interrogation cannot be assessed mechanically, without regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. On these grounds, and having regard to the apprehension of arrest expressed by the petitioner, learned counsel prays that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition and submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioner regarding the forging of the complainant’s signature and other documents, including documents relating to the bank account. It is further submitted 1 (2022)1 SCC 676 2 (2024) 4 SCC 222 3 (1977) 4 SCC 137

that, subsequent thereto, agreements of sale were also created. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the role of the petitioner came to light from the confessional statement of a co-accused, and the relevant aspects of the petitioner’s alleged involvement are still under investigation. It is further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for eliciting relevant facts and circumstances connected with the alleged offences and for effectively investigating the role attributed to him. He further contends that the allegations against the petitioner, prima facie, attract the provisions of Section 338 of the BNS. Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the anticipatory-bail petition.

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

8. At the outset, the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge disclose that the Magistrate declined to accept the remand proceedings on the premise that the statutory requirements under Section 36 of the BNSS, relating to intimation of the arrest to the relatives or friends of the accused, had not been complied with and, consequently, set Accused Nos. 1 to 3 at liberty. However, in the same order, the Magistrate directed them to furnish personal bonds and surety bonds with two sureties with condition to appear before the SHO, Keesara Police

Station. The learned Sessions Judge subsequently found that the directions requiring the accused to furnish sureties and to appear before the SHO were impermissible, holding that such directions were, in substance, tantamount to an order granting bail. Thus by setting aside the order to that extent, the investigating agency was given liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law. In this position, the status of the accused in relation to the allegations made against them in the crime, as well as the investigating agency’s authority to take further action, remained open from the inception. The petitioner’s apprehension of arrest is, therefore, not without basis, and the prayer made in the present petition is perfectly tenable and is required to be considered in the context of the petitioner’s application for anticipatory bail.

9. It is pertinent to note that, the Court, while exercising such discretion for grant of anticipatory bail, is required to consider, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the applicant, the possibility of absconding or interfering with the investigation, and the necessity for custodial interrogation, as reiterated by the Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1.

10. The record prima facie indicates that the petitioner’s alleged role emerged during investigation. It is alleged that documents were submitted before TGRERA by forging the signatures of the de facto complainant. The remand report refers to the alleged forged signatures and documentary material obtained from the banking institution, revenue authorities, HMDA and the other authorities. The material relied upon by the prosecution is thus predominantly documentary in nature. Though the allegations are serious, the investigation is still required to ascertain the petitioner’s precise role and criminal liability.

11. It is well settled position that, at the stage of considering anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to meticulously examine the prosecution case or adjudicate disputed questions of fact, including the petitioner’s precise role in the preparation, execution or submission of the alleged forged documents. Such matters are for investigation and, if necessary, trial. It is equally well settled that the mere absence of a demonstrated need for custodial interrogation does not, by itself, warrant grant of anticipatory bail. In Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., (2022) 17 SCC 391, the Supreme Court held that the Court must consider the prosecution case as a whole, including the nature of the offence and the punishment prescribed.

12. In the present case, however, the overall circumstances favour the petitioner. He appeared before the Investigating Officer pursuant to the Magistrate’s direction and has undertaken to cooperate with the investigation and abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. There is no material indicating any likelihood of his absconding, evading the process of law, influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The principal material relied upon by the prosecution is documentary and has been obtained from statutory and financial authorities. No compelling circumstance has been demonstrated to establish that custodial arrest is indispensable for a fair and effective investigation.

13. Accordingly, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the role presently attributed to the petitioner, the documentary nature of the evidence, his conduct during investigation, and the absence of any demonstrated necessity for custodial arrest, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

14. It is made clear that these observations are confined to the present application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the genuineness of the documents, the alleged forgery, or the petitioner’s ultimate criminal liability. The investigating agency remains at liberty to complete the investigation in accordance with law, and the competent Court shall adjudicate the matter uninfluenced by the observations made herein.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Keesara Police Station on or before 08.09.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release his on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer. (B) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Tuesday and Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of his release on bail or until the filing of the final result, whichever is earlier. (C) The petitioner shall remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation. (D) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation. (E) The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (F) The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

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

16. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 24.08.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13310 OF 2026

DATE: 24.08.2026

CHS