IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1421 of 2026 Date: 18.02.2026 Between:

Mohammed Abdul Qadeer ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor at High Court, Hyderabad, through P.S.Munipally, Sangareddy District, Telangana and another ...Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.14 of 2026 of Munipally Police Station, Sangareddy District, wherein, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.10 for the offences punishable under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. Pursuant to the order dated 05.02.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner issued personal notice to respondent No.2 and filed proof of service. According to the learned counsel, notice has been duly served on respondent No.2. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter.

3. Heard Sri T.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the confession statement of the other accused, and that the alleged material was seized from the other accused. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients for the offences under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioner.

5. He further submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), as well as the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, is proceeding with the matter, which is contrary to law.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Investigating Officer will strictly follow the due procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, as well as the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record it reveals that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, as well as the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

8. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer is entitled to strictly follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, as well as the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________

JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

18.02.2026

sa