CRLP/10719/2026 of M.A. Sayed Khan @ MEER ABU SAYED KHAN Vs The State of Telangana on 20 July 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 petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 in Crime No.57 of 2026 on the file of Saidabad police station, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”).

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

4.1. The facts, in brief, are that the de facto complainant, acting as the GPA holder, lodged the complaint alleging that, in December 2019, the accused family approached him and introduced themselves as the owners of large extents of land situated at Karanbagh, Saidabad. They represented that they had developed a residential project known as Crown Plaza and offered to sell Flat No.309, admeasuring 1,075 square feet (including common areas), together with an undivided share of 22 square yards of land out of a total extent of 530 square yards. It is alleged that all the accused, acting in concert and supporting each other's representations, created confidence in the mind of the complainant by representing that one Mir Ahmed Khan had purchased the subject land under a registered sale deed. However, the de facto complainant subsequently discovered that the land, in fact, stood in the name of Syed Mustafa Khan, and that the accused, by impersonating the original owner, had executed sale deeds, gift deeds, and a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney. Thus, Mir Ahmed Khan had neither legal identity nor any title or authority over the property, and all the accused, acting in concert and with full knowledge, allegedly benefited from the fraud.

4.2. It is further alleged that the accused, by misusing the name of their paternal uncle, created a false Sada Bynama and thereby executed the entire fraudulent scheme for their own benefit. By making these joint false representations, they induced the complainant to enter into agreements of sale and received substantial amounts through RTGS transactions. It subsequently came to light that Flat No.309 did not exist at all in the proposed building. According to the complaint, the intention to cheat existed from the very inception of the transaction. It is also alleged that the same flat was sold to more than one purchaser by executing different sale deeds, thereby disclosing a clear criminal conspiracy involving the creation of false and fabricated title documents. The complaint further alleges that, in January 2022, when the de facto complainant demanded registration of the flat, the accused criminally intimidated him by threatening him with dire consequences. Based on the said allegations, the present crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the de facto complainant claims to be the GPA holder of the person who is alleged to have entered into the agreement; however, the complaint is drafted as though the transaction was entered into by the complainant himself. It is further contended that the complaint does not disclose that the complainant is making the allegations on behalf of the principal. It is also argued that there is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the complainant, as the petitioners neither executed nor signed the alleged agreement of sale nor received any part of the sale consideration. It is further submitted that the FIR contains only vague and omnibus allegations without attributing any specific overt act to the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the dispute is essentially civil in nature but has been given a criminal colour. It is contended that the allegations relating to criminal breach of trust, forgery, and the use of forged documents are wholly without substance.

5.2. The learned counsel further points out that, although the complainant alleges that his request for registration was refused in January 2022, he remained completely silent until lodging the complaint on 07.02.2026, and no explanation has been offered for such inordinate delay. It is nevertheless submitted that the petitioners are willing to cooperate with the investigation. They are permanent residents of Hyderabad, have no criminal antecedents, and there is no likelihood of their absconding. Accordingly, considering their apprehension of arrest, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be granted.

6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contends that the complaint and the material collected during the prima facie investigation clearly make out a case against the petitioners. It is submitted that the accused acted in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy by creating a false chain of title in respect of the Crown

Plaza project through fabricated documents. It is further alleged that the accused manipulated the municipal survey numbers, boundaries, and the identity of accused No.1, and thereby induced the complainant to purchase Flat No.309. Although the complainant paid a sum of Rs.41.70 lakhs, the accused failed to execute and register the sale deed in his favour.

6.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the investigation has prima facie revealed that the title documents relied upon by the accused pertain to an altogether different property, whereas Crown Plaza was constructed on a different parcel of land. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused dishonestly induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount of money by relying upon forged and fabricated documents, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves. It is further contended that, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they may not cooperate with the investigation. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is sought.

7.1. Learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant submits that the accused, on the strength of fabricated title documents, falsely represented themselves to be the absolute owners of the property and induced the de facto complainant to purchase a flat in Crown Plaza, for which he paid an amount of Rs.41 lakhs through RTGS. It is alleged that accused No.1, by impersonating the true owner, executed a sale deed and a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of the other accused by altering the municipal survey numbers, boundaries, and property descriptions. It is further submitted that subsequent verification revealed that the flat agreed to be sold, namely Flat No.309, did not exist at all. According to the learned counsel, the documents relied upon by the accused are fabricated and relate to an entirely different property. It is further contended that the revenue survey and physical demarcation establish that the original title documents and the land upon which Crown Plaza was constructed pertain to two distinct properties situated in different survey numbers.

7.2. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 14 SCC 350; Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of West Bengal, (2002) 1 SCC 555; Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar; Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751; Shrisht Dhawan (Smt.) v. Shaw Bros., (1992) 1 SCC 534; Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349; K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2008) 12 SCC 481; Allu Srinivasa Rao v. State of Telangana, W.P. No.12489 of 2020 (Telangana High Court, decided on 11.05.2020); and Aalim v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P.(C) No.12079 of 2025, 2025:DHC:6933.

7.3. On the strength of the above submissions, learned counsel for the de facto complainant opposes the grant of anticipatory bail, contending that the petitioners were active participants in the alleged conspiracy and beneficiaries of the fraudulent transaction. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is prayed for.

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

9. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioners is that, acting in concert, they projected themselves as the owners and developers of a residential apartment complex known as Crown Plaza and induced the complainant's principal to enter into agreements of sale by producing allegedly forged and fabricated title documents. It is further alleged that they collected an amount of Rs.41 lakhs towards sale consideration, impersonated the true owner, and executed gift deeds and a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, which constitute the very foundation of the alleged chain of title. According to the prosecution, these documents were fabricated with the intention of creating a false appearance of lawful ownership and thereby dishonestly inducing the complainant's principal to part with substantial amounts of money.

10. It is a well-settled proposition of law that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or conduct a roving inquiry into the merits of the prosecution case. The Court is only required to assess whether, on the facts and circumstances presented, the applicant has made out a case for the exercise of the extraordinary discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.

11. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court exhaustively enumerated the factors governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C., holding that the Court must balance the individual's fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution against the societal interest in a fair and effective investigation. The Court identified, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the possibility of the accused absconding, the likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and the necessity for custodial interrogation as the relevant considerations while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. Similarly, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that arrest should not be made as a matter of course merely because the offence is cognizable. The investigating agency must demonstrate that

arrest is necessary for one or more of the purposes contemplated under Section 41(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

12. In the present case, the prosecution alleges that the petitioners created fabricated title documents and, on the strength thereof, induced the principal of the de facto complainant to purchase the subject flat. It is also alleged that the foundational documents, including the gift deed and the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, were executed by impersonating the true owner and formed the basis for the subsequent transactions. At the same time, it is not in dispute that, according to the complaint itself, the alleged fraudulent acts and the non-existence of the agreed flat came to the knowledge of the complainant as early as January, 2022. Nevertheless, the complaint came to be lodged only on 07.02.2026. Whether such delay stands satisfactorily explained and the legal consequences flowing therefrom are matters which require a comprehensive investigation and, if necessary, appreciation of evidence during the course of trial. At this stage, this Court is not expected to record any conclusive finding on the merits of the rival contentions.

13. A careful consideration of the allegations would indicate that the prosecution case substantially rests upon documentary evidence relating to title, ownership, development agreements, sale transactions, and the alleged fabrication of documents. The authenticity, legal effect, and evidentiary value of those documents are matters which would primarily be established through documentary and expert evidence during the course of investigation and trial. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners have expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigating agency and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. The prosecution has not placed any specific material to indicate that the petitioners have criminal antecedents, are likely to abscond, evade the process of law, tamper with documentary evidence, or influence material witnesses. More importantly, no compelling circumstances have been brought on record to demonstrate that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is indispensable for carrying forward the investigation. In the absence of any material indicating the necessity for custodial interrogation, and having regard to the settled principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Nevertheless, considering the nature of the allegations and the stage of investigation, it is necessary to impose conditions to ensure the petitioners' continued cooperation with the investigating agency, to safeguard the interests of the prosecution, and to secure their availability during the course of investigation and any subsequent proceedings.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:

a) Petitioner No.1/Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Saidabad police station, Hyderabad, on or before 07.08.2026. Upon such surrender, or in the event of their arrest, the Station House Officer shall release them on bail upon each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer.

b) The petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer every Thursday between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. for a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of their release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects.

c) The petitioners shall furnish their complete residential addresses and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the proceedings before the trial court. d) The petitioners shall neither directly nor indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall they tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

e) In addition, the petitioners shall abide by the conditions contemplated under section 438(2) of BNSS.

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.

15. 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: 20.07.2026

MRKR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10719 OF 2026

DATE: 20.07.2026

MRKR