Telangana High Court
WP/16769/2026 of Mukeed Mohammed Vs State of Telangana on 29 May 2026
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENry NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX THE HONOURABLE SR!JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITI ON NO: 16769 OF 2026 1. Mukeed Mohammed, S/o Rasheed, aged about 29 years, Occ. Pvt
[ 34851
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENry NINTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX
THE HONOURABLE SR!JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 16769 OF 2026
1. Mukeed Mohammed, S/o Rasheed, aged about 29 years, Occ. Pvt Employee, Rlo.2-29, Sirpur (t) Village and Mandal, Komurambheem Asifabad District.
2. Moiz Mohammed, S/o Rasheed, aged about 25 years, Occ. Pvt Employee, Rlo.2-29, Sirpur (t) Village And Mandal, Komurambheem Asifabad District.
..PETITIONERS
AND
1 . State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Station House Officer, Sirpur T Police Station, Komurambheem Asifabad District.
3. Ramesh Rathod, S/o Noor Singh, aged about 46 years, Occ: Constable 2790, Sirpur T Police Station, Komurambheem Asifabad Dist.
E-I:FITtrNIIFTII-E
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 in not following the procedure prescribed under section 35 (3) of BNS Act and guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Apex court in Arnesh kumar vs State of Bihar in crime No. 9412026 dated 12.5.2026 even though the offences are punishable less than 7 years i.e., u/s 3't8(4), 316(2), 317(21 of BNS Act as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondent No 2 to follow the procedure prescribed u/s 35 (3) and guidelines framed by the Apex court in Arnesh kumar Vs State of Bihar.
NT
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No 2 to follow the procedure prescribed u/s 35 (3) and guidelines framed by the Apex court in Arnesh kumar Vs State of Bihar in crime No g4t2o26 dated 12.5.2026 for the offence u/s 318(4), 316(2) and 311 (2) of BNS Act pending disposal of the above writ petition.
counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GUD| MADHUSUDHAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.l & 2: Gp FOR HOME
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION No.16769 of 2026
DATE:29.05.2o26
Between:
Mukeed Mohammed & another
...Petitioners
AND
State of Telangana,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad & others
...Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:- " ... to issue writ order or direclion tnore particularly one in the n(tlure of .u,ril of munclunru.s dcc'lurin14 lhe uctbn of lhe respondent No. 2 in not Jbllovtittg the protetlure pre.tcrihed untler seclion 35
(3) of BNS Act - and guidelines.fianed b.v the Hon'ble Apex court in Arnesh kumar v.s. State of Bihctr in crime No. 94/2026 dated 12.5.2026 even though the offences are punishable less than 7 vear.s i.e., 318(41, 316@. 317(2t qf BNS Act as arbitrary and illegal and consequentl.y clirect the re.spondent No.2 to Jbllou, lhe procedure prescribed ws 35 (3) and guidelines Jramed by the Apex courl in Arnesh kumar Vs State of Bihar and to pass such other order or orders... "
2. Heard Mr. Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy' learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the record'
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the offences alleged against the petitioners under sections 318(4) , 316(21 and 3 17 (21of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act are punishable i- with imprisonment of less g6an seven years' the respondent authorities are proceeding with the investigation without following the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act (BNSS Act) and without adhering to the giridelines laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumdr u' Sto:te of Bihart '
4. In that view of the rnatter, respondent No'2 is directed to strictly follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS Act and also adh ere to the guidelines laid down by the Honble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) duting the course of investigation.
5. with the above direction, the writ Petition is disposed of No order as to costs. '( zo t+) 8 scc 273
Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. n r SD/.T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT //TRUE COPYII SECTI REGe oNO ISTRAR FFICER l The principar secretary, Home Department secretariat, Hyderabad, state of Telangana. 2 The station House officer, sirpur (T) porice station, Komurambheem Asifabad district.
3. One CC to SRt GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate tOpUCI i ' Iffi",:ff.it$i, FoR HoME' Hish court ror the state or rerangana, at
5. Two CD Copies To, BSR BS
HIGH COURT DATED: 29t05t2026
ORDER
& WP.No.16Z09 oJ 2026 J VACATION COURT 5rA.f,I t B 'i'ul\ ?[?[r I
L} DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS * o @ l6 b lat, I I \ I I I *