CRLP/12412/2026 of Syed Majeed @ Syed Mazeed, Vs The State of Telangana, on 11 August 2026

:ORDER:

These Criminal petitions are filed under Sectio n 482 of Bharatiga Nagaik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSSJ, seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Since the petitioners in both the petitions are accused in the very same crime and are facing identical allegations, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by u'ay of this common order'

-

3. Heard N{r.Uday Kumar Kukkadapu, learned courLsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syecl Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional hrblic Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The petitioners are arraved as accused Nos.l to 3 in Crime No.382 of 2026 on the hle of the Sadasivpet Police Station, SangeLreddy District, facing accusations under Sections 352. 115(2), 118(2) of rhe Bharatiya Ngago Sanhita (for short, 'BNSJ and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atro:ities) Act, 1989 (for short. "SC / ST (POA) Act".

5. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is thtt, on 08.07.2026 at about 8:00 p.m., while the nephews of the de facto comclainant were piaying in front of his house, the accused, who are neighbour s, approached them, abused them rn hlthy language ald beat them with thei:- hands. When the de facto complainant questioned the accused about the incident, Accused No.1 is alleged to have abused hrm in filthy language and assaulted him by beating him r,,.ith his hands. Pursuant to the report lodged by the de facto complainant, a crime came to be registered.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been fa lsely implicated in the alleged offence and tL.at, even on a bare reading of the police report, the invocation of the prorisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act, is prima facie unwarranted. He further sul)mits that, although the allegation is that the petitioners assaulted the de fa:ro complainant and - his nephews with their hands, the police, taking into consideration the of the tooth, treated the injury as medical report indicating a fracture grievous in nature and altered the provision of law to Section 118(2) of the BNS, notwithstanding that there was no allegation the said of the use of anY as contemPlated under provislon. Learned dangerous weapon counsel, however, submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by aly conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Apprehending coercive action' he therefore prays for appropriate relief by way of pre-arrest bail' or' in the alternative' for a direction to the investigating agency to issue notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. 7 . Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are specihc allegations against the petitioners He submits that' having regard to the injury sustained by the de facto complainant' the provision of law has been altered to Section 1 18(2) of the BNS and that the investigation is sti1l in progress. He further submits that the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act' have also been invoked and that the de facto compiainant has been notified in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the presence of the petitioners may be required for the purpose of investigation and that their custodial interrogation may also be necessary' On these grounds' learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissai of the petition -

8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on recor<l L The specific allegations against the petitioners are that, while the nephews of the de facto complainant were playing along with another accusr:d, the accused allegedly abused them and assaulted them by beating them u,ith their hands. When the de facto complainant questioned the accused regarding the incident, Accused No.1 is zrlleged to have also assaulted him by beating him with his hands. H aving regard to the allegations constituting the prima faiie case against the petitioners, and considering the nature of the incident wherein the petitloners are alleged to have assaulted the victims with their hands, while l<eeping open all the prerogatives of the investigating agency with regard to the offences under Section i 18(2) of the BNS and the provisions of the Srl/ST (pOA) Act, and taking into consideration the willingness expressed t,y the petitioners to cooperate u'ith the investigation, I am of the vieu that it would be appropriate to direct the investigating agency to serve notice upon the petitioners under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and proceed with the investigaticn in accordance with law.

10. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Station }{ouse Officer. Sadasivpet Police Station, Sangareddy District, u,'ithin one rveek from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upc,n such appearance\) the Investigzrting officer shall issue a notice to the petiti,rners under Section IEECI

35(3) of the BNSS in Crime No 382 of 2026 and shall thereafter proceed strictly in accordance with law' duly adhering to the principles and guidelines enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v' State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273' The petitioners shall' in turn' extend ful1 cooperation to the Investigating Ofltcer during the course of investigation' ll.Withthisdirection,theseCriminalPetitionsaredisposedof'Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shali stand closed' SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGI STRA /TTRUE COPY// To, ! ECTION OFFICER l.TheJudicialFirst.ClassMagistrate(SPL.Mobile)atsangareddy.

2. The Station uouse otri"er]t"a"iJp"ti"rice Siation' Sansareddy District'

3. Two ccs to the prori" pro.""".i,iJi,'nign -Corrt for the state of Telangana' at Hvderabad (OUT) lr'"; #i; i; ud'av Kumar Kukkadapu' A9-'9919 [oPUc] il & i; a;i sr.iJfi"r. Lonkala, Advocate toPUCl Two CD CoPies

DL/GNK *

HIGH GOURT DATED: 1110812026

COMMON ORDER

-'1. iP' -., $ )f t r1,.\ v 2 [ AUE 2u28 zo -\/ .\ {! I + * CRLP.Nos.12412 and 12549 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITONS Nf re le lss