CRLP/9393/2026 of Khaja Aneesudding Sameer @ Sameer AIi Vs The State of Telangana, on 10 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 sole accused in FIR No. 517 of 2026 of Saroornagar Police Station, Malkajgiri, facing accusations for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr. J.V. Amruth Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9393 of 2026

4.1. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the de facto complainant, who is a practicing Advocate, lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner/Accused impersonated him by unauthorizedly using his name and Advocate Enrolment Number AP/1087/2008. It is alleged that the petitioner/Accused fabricated and used a fake Advocate Identity Card and falsely projected himself before the public and various authorities as “Advocate Sameer”. According to the prosecution, by assuming such false identity, the petitioner/Accused cheated innocent persons and misused the professional identity and enrolment particulars of the de facto complainant for unlawful purposes.

4.2. It is further alleged that the petitioner/Accused, by falsely claiming himself to be an Advocate, submitted an application dated 06.02.2026 under the Right to Information Act before Saroor Nagar Police Station in the name and style of “Sameer Ali, Advocate”, seeking information relating to a vehicle bearing Temporary Registration No. TG 09 ALT R 3645. The de facto complainant further alleged that several similar cases relating to impersonation, forgery and cheating were already registered against the petitioner/Accused at Charminar, Nampally and Kalapatthar Police Stations, apart from referring to his alleged involvement in Crime No.58 of 2009 of Shah Ali Banda Police Station. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present crime came to be registered.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9393 of 2026

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the allegations regarding impersonation, fabrication of identity documents and misuse of the Advocate Enrolment Number of the de facto complainant are false, baseless and motivated. It is further submitted that the other crimes registered at Charminar, Nampally and Kalapatthar Police Stations arise out of substantially similar allegations initiated at the instance of the very same de facto complainant and that the petitioner has already been enlarged on regular bail in the said matters by competent Courts.

5.2. Learned counsel further submitted that prior to registration of the present crime, the petitioner was arrested pursuant to execution of a Non- Bailable Warrant issued in Crime No.58 of 2009 of Shah Ali Banda Police Station and was remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by order dated 17.04.2026, granted regular bail to the petitioner after observing that his absence was not deliberate and that his further incarceration was not warranted.

5.3. It is contended that before the petitioner could comply with the bail conditions by furnishing sureties and securing his release, the investigating agencies obtained PT Warrants in other cases and secured successive remand orders, thereby continuing his detention. It is further argued that the

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9393 of 2026

investigating authorities failed to disclose the fact of grant of bail while seeking PT Warrants and subsequent remand.

5.4. Placing reliance upon the judgments in Palanivel v. State, Crl. O.P. No. 14320 of 2019 - dated 11.7.2019 and Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani and another, 2024 (10) SCC 336, learned counsel submitted that issuance of a PT Warrant is only a procedural mechanism for securing the presence of an accused and, by itself, does not authorize indefinite or successive detention of a person who has already been enlarged on bail, unless such bail is cancelled in accordance with law.

5.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has already obtained regular bail in all connected cases arising out of similar allegations made by the same de facto complainant. It is contended that the offences alleged in the present crime are punishable with imprisonment extending up to seven years and, therefore, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, are squarely applicable.

5.6. Learned counsel further contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is unnecessary since the entire prosecution case is founded primarily upon documentary material, such as the alleged identity card, enrolment details and RTI application, which are already with the

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9393 of 2026

investigating agency. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a private employee, having family responsibilities, is a permanent resident, and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and comply with any conditions imposed by this Court. Accordingly, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

6.1. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is contended that the petitioner deliberately impersonated the de facto complainant by unauthorizedly using his genuine Advocate Enrolment Number, fabricated a fake Advocate Identity Card and misrepresented himself as an Advocate before public authorities.

6.2. It is further submitted that under such false professional identity, the petitioner not only misled Government authorities by submitting an RTI application before Saroor Nagar Police Station but also allegedly cheated members of the public. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner is involved in several cases of similar nature registered at different Police Stations and that such antecedents demonstrate a continuing pattern of conduct.

6.3. It is contended that considering the seriousness of allegations, previous criminal antecedents and the fact that investigation is still at a

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9393 of 2026

preliminary stage, grant of anticipatory bail may adversely affect the investigation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

8. The principal allegation against the petitioner is that he impersonated the de facto complainant by representing himself as an Advocate through alleged misuse of the complainant’s Enrolment Number, fabrication of an identity card and use of such identity before public authorities, including submission of an RTI application.

9. At this stage, it is relevant to note that the investigation is stated to be in progress and, as per the prosecution, only the de facto complainant has been examined so far. However, the nature of accusations indicates that the prosecution case substantially revolves around documentary evidence, namely the alleged Advocate Identity Card, enrolment particulars, RTI application and related records. The prosecution has not placed any material before this Court demonstrating any specific necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioner for recovery of documents or discovery of further material evidence.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9393 of 2026

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, held that while considering an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to maintain a balance between the personal liberty of an individual and the legitimate interest of the investigating agency. It was further held that arrest should not be resorted to merely because it is lawful; the necessity and justification for such arrest must exist.

11. It is also significant that the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to seven years. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that arrest in offences punishable up to seven years should not be automatic and that the police must satisfy the requirements contemplated under Section 41 Cr.P.C. before depriving a person of liberty.

12. The contention of the prosecution regarding involvement of the petitioner in other criminal cases and alleged antecedents has also been taken into consideration. No doubt, criminal antecedents are relevant factors while considering bail; however, mere pendency of other criminal cases cannot, by itself, constitute an absolute ground for denial of bail unless there exists material indicating likelihood of abscondence, interference with investigation, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Further, the petitioner has placed material indicating that he has already been granted

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9393 of 2026

bail in connected cases arising out of substantially similar allegations. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding non-cooperation with the investigation can be adequately addressed by imposing appropriate conditions ensuring his availability and cooperation.

13. Considering the nature of allegations, the fact that the evidence appears to be predominantly documentary in nature, the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, the absence of demonstrated necessity for custodial interrogation at this stage and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the request of the petitioner deserves favourable consideration, subject to appropriate conditions to safeguard the interest of investigation.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions: (A) The petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Saroor Nagar Police Station, Malkajgiri, on or before 23.07.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest, the Station House Officer shall release the petitioner/Accused on bail on execution of personal bonds for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9393 of 2026

Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said Officer. (B) The petitioner/Accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday and Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of his release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects. (C) The petitioner/Accused shall furnish his complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein. (D) The petitioner/Accused 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. (E) The petitioner/Accused shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (F) Any willful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioners liable to appropriate proceedings before the Court concerned, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable laws.

11. It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory bail and shall

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9393 of 2026

not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 10.07.2026 svl