Allowed

Mr. Kumar Ops, v. The State of Telangana.

Telangana HC10 Sept 2026CRLP/14307/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a criminal petition under Section 482 BNSS regarding cheating allegations. The court held that the absence of a registered FIR did not render the application premature due to the reasonable apprehension of arrest based on the specific complaint lodged against the proposed accused.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in connection with the enquiry/proceedings on complaint dated 03.07.2026, subject to conditions including surrender by 25.09.2026 and cooperation with investigation.

Mr. Kumar Ops, Vs The State of Telangana. — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶3

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14307 OF 2026

¶4

(CNR No. HBHC010600182026)

DATE: 10.09.2026

Between :

Mr.Kumar OPS

… Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana

¶11

… Respondent

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik

¶14

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking the relief of pre-arrest

¶15

bail.

¶16

The petitioner is claimed as proposed accused in unregistered crime

¶17

before the Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶18

Heard Mr. Sudarshan Malugari, learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶19

and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent -State.

¶20

¶21

4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 03.07.2026, the de facto complainant lodged a report before the Inspector of Police, Jubilee Hills Police Station, alleging that, with an intention to purchase land, she approached the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner showed her two plots situated at Nandi Hills and represented that the said properties were genuine and capable of being validly purchased. Believing the representations made by the petitioner, the de facto complainant purchased an extent of 900 square yards under one sale deed dated 20.01.2018 and a further extent of 300 square yards under another sale deed dated 26.07.2018. It is stated that, upon registration of the sale transactions, the de facto complainant paid a total consideration of Rs.5 crores to the petitioner and received the original sale documents.

¶22

4.2. It is further alleged that, subsequently, the de facto complainant came to know that the land represented to her as the property purchased by her was, in fact, part of Government land comprised in Sy.No.46, and not land comprised in Sy.No.5/3, as represented at the time of the sale. According to the de facto complainant, the petitioner thereby misled her by furnishing false information and, on the basis of such representations, induced her to purchase the properties, thereby cheating her. It is also alleged that, when she subsequently attempted to contact the petitioner in

¶23

¶24

relation to the said transaction, there was no response from him. Aggrieved thereby, she lodged the aforesaid complaint.

¶25

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and that the dispute arising out of the alleged sale transactions is essentially civil in nature, which has subsequently been given a criminal colour after a lapse of approximately eight years from the date of the transactions. He further submits that the allegations concerning the title to the property are disputed and that the Land Grabbing Court has passed an order in relation to the Government land. According to the learned counsel, the alleged dispute regarding title does not have any subsisting basis so as to warrant criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

¶26

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that, even according to the documents relied upon by the de facto complainant, the petitioner executed only the sale deed in respect of 300 square yards for the sale consideration of 12 Lakhs, whereas the other sale deed relating to 900 square yards was executed by another vendor. Nevertheless, the petitioner has been specifically implicated in the complaint in respect of the entire transaction. It is further contended that, although the police received the complaint, no crime has been registered against the petitioner as yet. However, the petitioner is allegedly being frequently summoned and subjected to pressure to settle the matter. In view of the apprehension that the police

¶27

¶28

may take coercive action against him and he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court, petitioner seeks protection by way of anticipatory bail.

¶29

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition. On the basis of written instructions, he admits that the police received the complaint dated 03.07.2026. He submits that, after making a General Diary Entry, the police are conducting an enquiry into the allegations and that, as on date, no crime has been registered against the petitioner. He further submits that the complaint contains specific allegations against the petitioner relating to cheating and the alleged incorrect reflection of the survey number in the sale deed, notwithstanding the allegation that the said survey number pertains to Government land. He submits that the enquiry is still in progress and that the investigating agency may, at an appropriate stage, take such action as may be warranted in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. In the circumstances, he prays that the petition for anticipatory bail be dismissed.

¶30

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.

¶31

¶32

It is pertinent to note that the mere fact that no crime has been registered pursuant to the complaint does not, by itself, render a petition for anticipatory bail premature. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS may be invoked where the applicant demonstrates a reasonable and genuine apprehension of arrest founded upon an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) , (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court reiterated these considerations and held that the absence of an FIR, by itself, does not render an application for anticipatory bail premature where there exists a reasonable apprehension of arrest based on an accusation of a non-bailable offence. One of the relevant considerations in this regard is the necessity for custodial interrogation.

¶33

In the present case, the complaint dated 03.07.2026 specifically names the petitioner and attributes allegations of cheating and misrepresentation in relation to a property transaction. The police have admittedly received the complaint, made a General Diary Entry, and are conducting an enquiry into the allegations. Further, the petitioner has stated that he is being repeatedly summoned and pressured to settle the matter and that he apprehends coercive action. In these circumstances, the apprehension of arrest cannot be regarded as merely imaginary or premature merely because an FIR has not yet been registered.

¶34

¶35

Having regard to the fact that the alleged transactions relate to the year 2018, whereas the complaint was lodged on 03.07.2026; the allegations of misrepresentation regarding the character and ownership of the land; the pendency of the enquiry; the petitioner's willingness to cooperate; and the absence of any material presently demonstrating the necessity for custodial interrogation, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's personal liberty can be protected without prejudicing the investigation. The interests of the investigation can be adequately safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions requiring the petitioner to cooperate with the investigating agency and to refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

¶36

For the aforesaid reasons, and balancing the petitioner's right to personal liberty against the legitimate requirements of the investigation, this Court finds it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with the enquiry/proceedings being conducted by the investigating agency on the basis of the complaint dated 03.07.2026, subject to the conditions stipulated hereunder.

¶37

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions.

¶38

¶39

(A) The petitioner/proposed accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad on or before 25.09.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release his on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer.

¶40

(B) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer as and when required for the enquiry/investigation pertaining to the complaint dated 03.07.2026 and shall cooperate fully with the investigation.

¶41

(C) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation.

¶42

(D) The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶43

(E) The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

¶44

(F) Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings before the court

¶45

¶46

below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

¶47

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶48

______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J

¶49

Date: 10.09.2026 CHS

¶50

¶51

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶52

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14307 OF 2026

¶53

DATE: 10.09.2026

¶54

CHS

Mr. Kumar Ops, v. The State of Telangana.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Kumar Ops, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases