CRLP/9514/2026 of Mohammed Nooruddin @ Nooruddin Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA on 15 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 petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.10 in Crime No. 78 of 2026 of Mudigonda Police Station, Khammam District, facing accusations for the offences punishable under Sections 140(1), 61(2), 115(2), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

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

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9514 of 2026

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.03.2026, the de facto complainant lodged a report stating that her husband, a former Sarpanch of Pandregupalli Village, Mudigonda Mandal, had left their house at about 5:30 a.m. on the same day for his routine morning walk towards Khanapuram but did not return home. Upon making inquiries, she came to know from one Shaik Jaanimiya that her husband had not attended his usual morning walk. Thereafter, she searched for him at nearby places and at the houses of relatives; however, his whereabouts could not be traced. During the course of her inquiries, one Battini Srinivasa Rao of Khanapuram Village informed the de facto complainant that a white-coloured Ashok Leyland vehicle had passed towards their village at the relevant time. It is further alleged that there were previous disputes between her husband and the accused in relation to certain land. Owing to the said prior enmity, the de facto complainant expressed her suspicion that the accused might have intercepted her husband during his morning walk and caused harm to him. She also furnished the physical description of her husband along with the particulars of the clothes he was wearing at the time he left the house. Based on the said complaint, the police registered a crime and commenced investigation to trace the missing person.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/Accused No.10 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime without any direct or specific material connecting him with the alleged

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9514 of 2026

offences. It is contended that the allegations made in the complaint are founded solely on suspicion arising from previous disputes relating to agricultural land and that a civil dispute has been given the colour of a criminal case with the intention of exerting pressure upon the petitioner. It is further submitted that the complaint was lodged at the instance of one Shaik Ibrahim, who allegedly intended to grab the family property. According to the petitioner, although the said person is a material witness capable of disclosing the true facts, the investigating agency deliberately failed to examine him. The petitioner further contends that there are material inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution case, particularly with regard to the movements of the alleged victim and the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which cast serious doubt on the allegations levelled against him.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that the First Information Report does not disclose any specific overt act or attribute any distinct role to the petitioner so as to warrant his arrest. It is further contended that the investigation is substantially complete and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Learned counsel submits that, if arrested, the petitioner would be subjected to unnecessary hardship and harassment. It is also contended that co-accused Nos.1, 3 to 8, and 11 have already been granted bail and, therefore, the petitioner is likewise entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation, and is willing to abide by any condition

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9514 of 2026

that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State opposed the petition and contended that the allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature. It is submitted that the crime was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the wife of the missing person and that, during the course of investigation, the role of the petitioner came to light. It is further submitted that the disputes between the parties relating to the land, coupled with the attendant circumstances, necessitate a thorough and proper investigation. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that the grounds urged by the petitioner are matters to be considered during trial and cannot be appreciated at this stage. Having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner and the necessity of ensuring an effective investigation, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.

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

8. Upon careful consideration of the allegations contained in the complaint, the material placed before this Court, and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it prima facie appears that the implication of the petitioner is founded principally upon the suspicion expressed by the de facto complainant arising out of the alleged

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9514 of 2026

previous disputes relating to agricultural land. A plain reading of the complaint does not disclose any specific overt act, distinct role, or direct incriminating material attributed to the petitioner, except the allegation of previous enmity between the parties. It is trite that, although previous enmity may constitute a relevant circumstance for investigation, it cannot, by itself, constitute substantive evidence of criminal involvement in the absence of supporting material connecting the accused with the commission of the alleged offence.

9. At this stage of consideration of an application for anticipatory bail, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or record any finding on the merits of the rival claims. The limited enquiry is whether, on the basis of the available material, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary and whether the petitioner has made out a case for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. The allegations regarding the involvement of the petitioner are matters that are required to be thoroughly investigated and ultimately established in accordance with law during the course of investigation and, if necessary, at the trial.

10. It is further evident from the record that co-accused Nos.1, 3 to 8, and 11, whose roles are stated to be substantially similar, have already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court. Although the principle of parity cannot be treated as the sole or decisive ground for grant of

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9514 of 2026

anticipatory bail, it nevertheless remains a relevant consideration in ensuring consistency in judicial discretion. Unless distinguishing features are demonstrated by the prosecution, similarly situated accused ought ordinarily to receive similar treatment. In the present case, no material distinction has been pointed out to indicate that the role attributed to the petitioner is qualitatively different from that of the co-accused who have already been granted anticipatory bail.

11. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of the allegations, the absence of any specific overt act attributed to the petitioner in the complaint, the absence of material demonstrating the necessity for custodial interrogation, the petitioner's unequivocal undertaking to cooperate with the investigation, and the fact that similarly placed co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail, this Court is satisfied that the prayer of the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail deserves favourable consideration.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions to ensure his availability for investigation and secure the interest of the prosecution: (A) The petitioner/Accused No.10 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Mudigonda Police Station, Khammam District, on or before 29.07.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest, the Station House Officer shall release the petitioner/Accused No.10 on

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9514 of 2026

bail on execution of personal bonds 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 petitioner/Accused No.10 shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of his release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects. (C) The petitioner/Accused No.10 shall not leave India without obtaining prior permission from the jurisdictional Court concerned. (D) The petitioner/Accused No.10 shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (E) The petitioner/Accused No.10 shall furnish his complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein. (F) The petitioner/Accused No.10 shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall he tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (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.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9514 of 2026

13. 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: 15.07.2026 svl