Sopan Kamble @ Sopan Ramu Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEiLANGANA AT

¶2

SATURDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAYOF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMTJUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITiON NO: 13010 OF 2025

¶6

Sopan Kamble @ Sopan Ramu, S/o.Ramu, Age.67 years, Occ.Retd Railway employee R/o. H.No. 3-5-147, Tatiguda, Adilabad District. Presently ResidirB at R/o. H. No. 5-451308 KRK Colony, Mavala, Adilabad

¶7

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1

¶8

The State of Telangana, Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court br the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶9

... RESPOI{DENT/COM PLAINANT

¶10

Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No. 1 on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 469 ol 2025 registered at Police Station Mavala, Adilabad District, subject to such conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to impose

¶11

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition ard upon hearing the arguments of Sri RANGAM VISHAL, Advocate for the Petitioner and D. ARUN KUMAR Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the sole Respondent

¶12

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶13

THE HOITOI'RABLE^{SMT. JuSTICEK. SUJAI{A}

¶14

CRIMINAL PEIITION^{No.13O1O ot 20.25}

¶15

This Criminal Petition^{isfrled under Section 482 of} Bharatiya Nagarik^{Sural<sha Sanhita, 2023 (fot short tsNSS) for} grant of pre-arrest bail to^{the petitioner,who is arrayed as} accused No. 1 in^{Crime No.469 of 2025beforethe Mavala Police} Station, Adilabad District.

¶16

The brief facts of^{the case are that on 08'09'2025at about} 20:15 hours, a complaint^{was lodgedby one Thakur Kaushik} Sai Singh, Advocate,^{allegingthat while he was discharging his} duties as Advocate^{Commissioner in C'C'No'182of 2022to} execute a non-bailable^{warrant against one Sopan Kamble,the} said accused and^{his wife, Varsha Kamble, attackedhim and} his colleague with a^{deadly weapon,causinginjuries' It was} further alleged that^{thecomplainantand hiscolleague} sustained injuries^{while defending themselves and that the} accused obstmcted^{them from performingtheir lawful duties'}

¶17

2

¶18

sKs,", Crl.P.IIo.l3OlO of 2(DS

¶19

Heard Sri Ragam Vishal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case without any enquiry or credible evidence and that the FIR was registered mechanically on the basis of a fabricated and self-drafted complaint by the de facto complainant, who is hirnself a practicing advocate. He further submitted that there were no specific allegations or medical evidence to substantiate the alleged assault, and tJ:e petitioner, being an innocent daily wage worker with no crirninal antecedents, was being harassed through false accusations. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

¶21

On the other hand, learned Additional public prosecutor opposed the bail stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He further submitted that the investigation was not yet completed. At this stage, granting of

¶22

r.r...

¶23

3

¶24

sKsl,J Crl.P.No.13O1O of 2O25

¶25

pre-arrest bail to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶26

tn the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the allegations against the petitioner are^grave in nature, involving an alleged assault on an Advocate Commissioner and his colleague while they were discharging their official d.uties pursuant to Court orders. The investigation is still at initial stage and the role of the petitioner is^yet to be thoroughly ascertained. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the nature of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

7. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed.

¶28

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶29

closed.

¶30

SD'. T.SRINTVASAREDDY
REGISTRAR
,,TRUE COPY//
OFFICER

¶31

To,

¶32