Partly allowed

Syed Arshad @ Arshad v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Feb 2025CRLP/1734/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by accused in a family-dispute case of house trespass and assault on the de-facto complainant and her son. The court refused bail to accused Nos.1 to 3 as principal perpetrators but granted it to petitioner Nos.4 and 5/accused Nos.5 and 6 with conditions including surrender before the police.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail to petitioner Nos.4 and 5/accused Nos.5 and 6: surrender within two weeks; Rs.25,000 bond with two sureties each; weekly appearance Mondays for eight weeks or till charge sheet.

Syed Arshad @ Arshad Vs The State of Telangana — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1734 of 2025

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 in Crime No.509 of 2024 of Nizamabad I Town Police Station, Nizamabad.

¶5

The brief facts of the case are thaton 05.12.2024, at about 15:30 hours, the accused persons besides illegally trespassing into the house of the de-facto complainant, also beaten the de-facto complainant and her son mercilessly abusing them in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences. As a result, the de-facto complainant and her son sustained bleeding injuries. Hence, a case was registered vide Crime No.509 of 2024 before the Nizamabad I Town Police, Nizamabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 292, 118(1) and 351(3) read with 3(5) of the BNS.

¶6

Heard Sri Syed Yousuf Syed Omer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionersas well as Sri Syed Yasar

¶7

¶8

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1734 of 2025

¶9

Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State .

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners firstly submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they are no way concerned with the alleged offences. He secondly submitted that there is family dispute between the parties. He thirdly submitted that though there is no corroborative evidence, the petitioners were implicated in the case with false and fabricated allegations. He fourthly submitted that except omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. He lastly submitted that the petitioners are residents of Nizamabad, with movable and immovable properties, and are willing to furnish sureties as directed and prayed the Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶11

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is not yet completed, therefore, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners, at this stage, does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶12

Having regard to the submissions made by both the parties and a perusal of the material placed on record, prima facie , it is apparent that there is family dispute between the

¶13

¶14

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1734 of 2025

¶15

parties. It is noteworthy that accused Nos.1 to 3 illegally trespassed into the house of the mother-in-law of accused No.5 i.e, the de-facto complainant and beaten the de-facto complainant and her son over a family dispute. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3. However, since thematerial part of the investigation is completed, this Court deems it fit and proper to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner Nos.4 and 5/accused Nos.5 and 6.

¶16

Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner Nos.4 and 5/accused Nos.5 and 6 subject to the following conditions:

¶17

i. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5/accused Nos.5

¶18

and 6 shall surrender before the Station House Officer of Nizamabad I Town Police Station,Nizamabad, within two weeks from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release them on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties, for the like sum each.

¶19

¶20

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1734 of 2025

¶21

ii. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5/accused Nos.5 and 6 shall appear before the concernedStation House Officer on every Monday between 9:00 A.M. to 10 P.M., for a period of eight (08) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier.

¶22

iii. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5/accused Nos.5 and 6 shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and co-operate with the Investigating Officer ininvestigating the case.

¶23

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶24

closed.

¶25

_______________ K. SUJANA, J

¶26

Date: 20.02.2025 gms

¶27

¶28

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1734 of 2025

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶30

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1734 of 2025

¶31

Date: 20.02.2025

¶32

gms

Syed Arshad @ Arshad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Arshad @ Arshad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karra Raghu Vs The State of Telangana

Gajender Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Konde Mallikarjun Vs State of Telangana

Rayabaram vishnau Vs The State of Telangana

Nanda Kumar Kasini Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Chintala Vimala, (died ) Vs Bommena Rajubai