Telangana High Court

CRLP/10428/2026 of Mohammed Azeem Pasha, Vs The State of Telangana on 9 July 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10428 of 2026 DATE: 09.07.2026 Between: Mohammed Azeem Pasha …Petitioner/accused No.1 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ….

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10428 of 2026

DATE: 09.07.2026

Between:

Mohammed Azeem Pasha

…Petitioner/accused No.1

AND

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court at Hyderabad.

…. Respondent/Complainant

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed before this Court for grant of bail to the Petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in FIR No.496 of 2026 of Jeedimetla Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 318(2), r/w 3(5) of the BNS.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 16.04.2026, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that in the year 2021, she uploaded her resume for job through mobile application and the petitioner herein contacted her and introduced himself as working for JGP solutions. Over a period of time, they developed acquaintance and used to communicate frequently through phone calls and chats. One day the petitioner invited the de-facto complainant to his room located at Madhapur and on the promise of marriage, they entered into physical relationship. The de-facto complainant got aborted her pregnancy for two times on the insistence of the petitioner herein and later, the petitioner started avoiding her. Later, the de-facto complainant came to know that petitioner got engaged with one Vijayalakshmi and when the de-facto complainant questioned the petitioner about the same, he did not give proper explanation. The de-facto complainant also contacted petitioner’s mother and she denied their relationship, his mother and Vijayalakshmi responsible for ruining the life of the de-facto complainant. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case for the above said offences.

3. Heard Sri P. Rana Kamalasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the said allegations and mere promise of marriage is not an offence to attract the ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS. He further submitted that there is no such allegation made by the victim before cancellation of the marriage and after cancellation of the marriage, she falsely implicated the petitioner herein in the present case and he is in jail since 02.06.2026 and the material part of the investigation was already completed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to him by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations against the petitioner herein are serious and heinous in nature. Further, the investigation is not yet completed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner herein is in jail since 02.06.2026. As seen from the remand case diary, the prosecution witnesses, LWs 1 to 10 have already been examined. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, the period of incarceration of the petitioner, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Medchal. ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.

iii. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).

7. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 09.07.2026 TU

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10428 OF 2026 DATE 09.07.2026

TU

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead