THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13021 OF 2025

ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 483 (2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner/defacto complainant seeking to cancel the bail granted by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.951 of 2025 in Cr.No.501 of 2025 of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad. The trial Court granted bail to A.1 and A.2 in the said crime, vide Crl.M.P.No.951 of 2025 on 20.08.2025. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 336(2), 318(4), 338 and

340(2) r/w.61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Heard Sri M. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defacto complainant and Sri Dharmesh D.K.Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3/A.1 and A.2 and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint against respondent Nos.2 and 3/A.1 and A.2 basing on which the police registered the case against the accused for the above offences, they were arrested on 08.08.2025 and A.1 and A.2 were remanded to judicial custody. A.1 and A.2 filed bail application vide Crl.M.P.No.951 of 2025 before the trial Court seeking regular bail and the trial Court by order dated 20.08.2025 granted bail without taking into consideration the counter filed by the prosecution, simply observing that the accused are undertaking to abide by any conditions that the court imposes and thereby imposed certain conditions. He further contended that while considering the bail application, the learned Magistrate has not at all considered the nature of offence, involvement of the accused persons in the offence nor the counter submissions of the prosecution and the crime is under investigation and moreover no reasons are assigned while granting bail. Granting of bail was seriously opposed on the ground that whereabouts of A.3 to A.9 are not known to the police and several key witnesses including the attesting witnesses to the sale deed, staff from the Registration Office remain to be examined and that the accused are closely acquainted with the said witnesses.

4. Learned counsel further contended that the trial Court has not considered that A.2 holds MBA from California and previously resided abroad and there is every chance of his fleeing away from the Country. A.1 and A.2 have no permanent residence or nature of availability to the police. The trial Court failed to appreciate that the signature of Sajjad Ali Baig was forged by A.2 and created the document styled as General Power of Attorney, but there was no stamping of notary made at St.Louis County, State of Missouri. Sajjad Ali Baig never resided in the address mentioned in the alleged GPA and without considering the severity of allegations against A.1 and A.2, the trial Court granted bail. Hence, prayed this Court to cancel the bail granted to A.1 and A.2.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3/A.1 and A.2 filed counter denying the averments of petition stating that there is no such illegality in granting bail. A.1 and A.2 are co-operating with the investigating agency. A.1 and A.2 were arrested on 08.08.2025 and they were sent to judicial custody and trial Court granted bail on 20.08.2025 and after release, A.1 and A.2 are obeying the conditions imposed by the trial Court. The petitioner herein has mischievously filed the present petition with mis-leading stories stating that A.1 and A.2 approached him and threatened him for settlement. A.1 and A.2 have not contacted either the defacto complainant or the witnesses and they are cooperating with the investigation. Learned counsel also submitted that the other accused in this case are granted pre-arrest bail by this Court, as such, there is no question of other accused absconding. Hence, prayed this Court to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering th