CRLP/10981/2026 of Zeeshanlqbal Vs The State of Telangana on 21 July 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.1 to 5 in FIR No.316 of 2026 of Shamshabad Police Station, Future City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 329(3), , 324(4), 308(5), read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr.Mohammed Amair Sohail, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Abdul Rab Malik, learned counsel representing Mr.Abu Akrma, learned counsel for de facto complainant and Mr.M.Vivekananda

Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent- State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a report stating that the lessee of the de facto complainant's land informed him that certain persons had entered the land, which the de facto complainant had purchased from the petitioners' mother under an Agreement of Sale dated 13.10.2001 and an unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 26.05.2004. It is alleged that the said persons damaged the CCTV cameras installed on the premises, erected certain boards, removed the existing gate, and installed a new gate. Upon verifying the CCTV footage, when the de facto complainant and his father arrived at the place on the same day at about 4:00 A.M., they found the petitioners present. It is further alleged that when the de facto complainant attempted to enter the premises, the petitioners obstructed then and to leave the property, demanded payment at the rate of Rs.15 lakhs per acre, aggregating to Rs.45 lakhs, and threatened with dire consequences. Based on the report lodged by the de facto complainant, the present crime was registered for the offences alleged.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case is false and fabricated and has been maliciously foisted against the petitioners. In support of the said contention, it is submitted that petitioner

No.3 had passed away on 13.08.2024, which, according to the petitioners, ex facie demonstrates the falsity of the allegations. It is further submitted that petitioner No.2 (Accused No.2) was in Saudi Arabia on the relevant date, as evidenced by the entries in his passport. Learned counsel further contends that, according to the complainant himself, his claim of possession over the subject property is based on the unregistered Agreement of Sale and unregistered Sale deed allegedly executed by the petitioners' mother. However, the petitioners have already availed civil remedies by instituting a civil suit challenging the complainant's claim over the property. It is also submitted that the allegation of extortion is wholly without basis and that the remaining offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Nevertheless, the petitioners, excluding petitioner No.3, who has since passed away, express their willingness to cooperate with the investigating agency and undertake to extend full cooperation throughout the course of the investigation by complying with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prays that the petitioners be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that while the de facto complainant was in lawful possession of the subject property, the petitioners trespassed into the land, damaged the CCTV cameras, and replaced the existing gate with a new one. It is further contended that when the de facto complainant, along with his father, visited the property, the petitioners obstructed their entry, threatened them with dire consequences, and demanded a sum of Rs.45 lakhs. It is, therefore, submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and that their custodial interrogation may be necessary for the purpose of effective investigation. It is further argued that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may adversely affect the investigation and cause prejudice to the interests of the de facto complainant as well as the investigating agency. On the above grounds, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

8. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the material available on record, and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side, this Court finds that petitioner No.2 is stated to have been outside India on the relevant date, as evidenced by the passport entries, and petitioner No.3 had admittedly passed away prior to the alleged incident. Despite the death of petitioner No.3, the complaint continues to refer to her as though she had participated in the alleged occurrence, which is ex facie improbable circumstance. Further, the dispute between the parties with regard to the subject property is already the subject matter of pending civil proceedings, thereby indicating the existence of an underlying civil dispute concerning possession and title. Although the existence of a civil dispute does not, by itself, preclude criminal prosecution where the ingredients of a cognizable offence are otherwise made out, it nevertheless constitutes a relevant circumstance while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail.

9. The principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail as elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, emphasize that anticipatory bail is intended to safeguard individual liberty and that denial thereof should not be founded merely on the seriousness of the allegations in the absence of a demonstrable necessity for custodial interrogation. Likewise, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 underscore that arrest is not to be made routinely and that personal liberty deserves protection unless the interests of investigation genuinely require custodial detention.

10. In the instant case, the petitioners, excluding petitioner No.3, have unequivocally expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation. At this stage, the prosecution has not placed any material demonstrating compelling or exceptional circumstances necessitating the custodial interrogation of the petitioners. The object of custodial interrogation must be founded upon the requirements of a fair and effective investigation and cannot be ordered as a matter of course. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the investigation can effectively proceed by securing the petitioners' cooperation through appropriate conditions ensuring their availability for the investigation. Such conditions would adequately safeguard the interests of the prosecution while simultaneously preserving the petitioners' right to personal liberty.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions: (A). The petitioners Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5/Accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Shamshabad Police Station, Future City, on or before 04.08.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release the petitioners on bail on execution of 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 the said Officer. (B) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Tuesday and Saturday between 09.00AM to 05.00PM, for a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of their release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects. (C) The petitioners shall remain available for interrogation as and when required during the course of investigation and shall extend full cooperation to the investigation. (D) The petitioners shall furnish their complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein. (E) The petitioners 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. (F) Any willful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioners liable to appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional Court, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable laws.

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

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 21.07.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10981 OF 2026

DATE : 21.07.2026

CHS