CRLP/9726/2026 of Umesh Kumar Toshniwal Vs The State of Telangana, Through the Station House Officer, Central Crime Station, on 13 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 4 in FIR No.91 of 2026 of Police Station, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 3338, 340(2) read with 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr.P.Prashanth, learned counsel representing Mr.B.Santosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Mohd.Misfaruddin, learned counsel for de facto complainant and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant, who is the brother of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and the brother-in- law of petitioner No. 4, lodged a report alleging that the petitioners, acting in concert and pursuant to a common design, fabricated a Will purportedly executed by their deceased father on 09.12.2011. It is alleged that, on the strength of the said Will, the petitioners subsequently executed and caused to be registered certain gift deeds in respect of the subject properties. Contending that the Will is a forged and fabricated document and that the petitioners entered into a criminal conspiracy to unlawfully appropriate the family properties by creating false documents, the complainant set the criminal law in motion, resulting in the registration of the present crime for the offences alleged.

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are wholly false, baseless, and have been initiated solely to exert pressure in an otherwise pending civil dispute concerning family properties. It is contended that a comprehensive suit for partition before the competent Civil Court has been initiated, wherein the validity and genuineness of the alleged Will constitute one of the principal issues for adjudication. It is, therefore, argued that the very question as to whether the Will is genuine or forged is already sub judice before the competent civil forum.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant remained completely silent for nearly thirteen years after the alleged execution of the Will dated 09.12.2011 and the subsequent execution of the registered gift deeds. Such unexplained and inordinate delay in initiating criminal proceedings, according to the petitioners, casts serious doubt upon the bona fides of the prosecution and prima facie indicates that the criminal proceedings have been instituted with an oblique motive to convert a predominantly civil dispute into a criminal prosecution.

5.3. It is further submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents and undertake to extend full cooperation to the investigating agency and to scrupulously comply with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant them anticipatory bail.

6.1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is contended that the Will relied upon by the petitioners is a fabricated document, brought into existence by them in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy with the sole object of depriving the complainant and other legal heirs of their legitimate share in the ancestral properties. It is argued that the subsequent execution and registration of the gift deeds pursuant to the alleged forged Will clearly demonstrate the concerted and deliberate acts of the petitioners in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.

6.2. Learned counsel further submits that, if the petitioners are granted the protection of anticipatory bail, there exists a reasonable apprehension that they may tamper with documentary evidence, or otherwise impede a fair and effective investigation. On these grounds, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor adopted the submissions advanced on behalf of the de facto complainant and submitted that the investigation is still at a nascent stage. According to the prosecution, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may become necessary for the purpose of unearthing the circumstances surrounding the alleged fabrication of the Will, collection of incriminating material, and identification of the persons involved in the alleged conspiracy. It is, therefore, contended that grant of anticipatory bail may adversely affect the investigation, and accordingly, dismissal of the petition is sought.

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 they fabricated the Will purportedly executed by their deceased father and, on the basis thereof, executed certain registered gift deeds in respect of the disputed properties. It is, however, not in dispute that a civil suit for partition is presently pending between the parties before the competent Civil Court, wherein the genuineness, validity, and legal effect of the very same Will are directly in issue and await adjudication.

10. At this stage, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the merits of the rival claims or record any conclusive finding regarding the authenticity of the disputed Will, as such an exercise would fall within the domain of the trial Court and the competent civil forum. The scope of consideration in an application seeking anticipatory bail is confined to examining whether custodial interrogation is indispensable, whether there exists a reasonable possibility of the accused absconding or interfering with the investigation, and whether the discretion deserves to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the case.

11. The principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail have been authoritatively laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, wherein it was held that the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (now Section 482

BNSS) is an extraordinary yet salutary remedy intended to safeguard individual liberty against arbitrary arrest and that its exercise must be guided by the facts and circumstances of each case.

12. Having regard to the nature of the accusations, the admitted pendency of the civil proceedings concerning the same subject matter, the considerable delay in lodging the complaint, the absence of any material indicating that the petitioners are likely to abscond or interfere with the course of investigation, and balancing the competing interests of the prosecution and the fundamental right to personal liberty, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The interests of the prosecution can be adequately safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions ensuring the petitioners' continued cooperation with the investigation.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions: (A). The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Police Station, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, on or before 28.07.2026. 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 Station House Officer as and when required between 10.00 a.m. to 03.00 p.m. for a period of ten (10) 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.

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

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 13.07.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9726 OF 2026

DATE : 13.07.2026

CHS