IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.16203 OF 2025

09.01.2026 Between :

Mehtab Nawab Gani Shaikh … Petitioner/A.3 And The State of Telangana, Through SHO P.S.Hussainialam Rep., by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad … Respondent : ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/A.3 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.193 of 2025 of Hussainialam Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 196 (1), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. The facts of the case are that on 16.09.2025 at 6:30 PM, the complainant-S.I of Police lodged a complaint before police stating that earlier that day at 11:00 AM, he came across a video posted on the Instagram account "muzammil hyderabad and bnt news." In the video, an individual was seen near Charminar Bus Stand, Punch Mohalla, Hyderabad, using highly abusive and derogatory language during the Milad-Un-Nabi 2025 procession. The individual made inflammatory remarks that appeared to be a deliberate attempt to hurt the religious sentiments of a particular community. The speech had the potential to incite communal tension, provoke public outrage, and disturb peace in the area. The act was deemed punishable under laws related to promoting enmity between communities and outraging religious feelings via social media. Basing on the said complaint police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri G.Digambar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is falsely implicated in this case, the alleged channel which the police officer has seen the video does not belong to the petitioner. Petitioner does not have any proximate connection with the persons seen in the video. Petitioner is resident of Mumbai and he is neither seen in the video uttering any word nor does he know any of person appeared in the video.

Hence, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that during the procession of Milad-un- Nabi festival celebrations, A.1 and A.2 started making provocative slogans hurting the feelings of other community which may lead to communal harmony, disturbing peace in the locality. The same was videographed by the petitioner herein. The said act leads to hatred between different community groups. Further petitioner is resident of Mumbai and if bail is granted he may not cooperate with the investigation. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, though petitioner contended that Section 35(3) of BNSS notice is served, learned Additional Public Prosecutor denied the same. Further Accused Nos.1 and 2 were already arrested. Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled for bail and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________

K. SUJANA, J Date :09.01.2026

Rds

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.16203 OF 2025 DATE :09.01.2026 Rds