IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2823 of 2026 DATE: 17.03.2026 BETWEEN:

Muhammad Waheed …..petitioner/accused And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor Cum Standing Counsel ACB, Hyderabad, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Through Inspector, P.S., ACB Rangareddy Range, Mechal-Malkajgiri District.

…..Respondent

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused in Crime No.04/RCO-ACB-RRR/2026, registered for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant purchased a house bearing No.46-842 at Bhagath Singh Nagar, Chinthal in the year 2016 and later constructed additional rooms and used the ground floor for commercial purposes by running a kirana business. In September 2025, the petitioner, who was working as Senior Assistant (Tax Inspector) in GHMC, issued a notice under Section 213 of the GHMC Act and inspected the premises for revision of property tax. It is alleged that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.90,000/- for assessing the tax with minimal hike and for entering the complainant’s name in the GHMC records in place of the previous owner, and that he accepted Rs.10,000/- as part payment. After verification through spy gadgets and further complaint, the ACB registered the FIR on 16.02.2026 and investigation is in progress. Basing on the same, the Crime was registered for the above said offences.

3. Heard Sri Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri B. Vamshidhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant with a view to evade lawful property tax arising from unauthorized construction and commercial use of the premises. He further submitted that the petitioner was only discharging his official duties in issuing notice and verifying the property for tax reassessment. The entire case is based on a failed trap and no tainted amount was recovered from the petitioner. The allegation that Rs.10,000/- was paid earlier is unsubstantiated and made after a delay of nearly three months without any independent evidence. He contended that the FIR itself was registered after an unexplained delay of more than two months from the date of complaint and the authenticity of the alleged electronic recording is a matter to be tested during trial. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that the petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs.90,000/- from the complainant for revising the house tax with minimal hike and for mutation of the complainant’s name in GHMC records, and had already accepted Rs.10,000/- as part of the bribe. He contended that the complainant approached the ACB and recorded the conversation with the accused officer using spy gadgets, which clearly indicates the demand of bribe and negotiations regarding the amount. He further submitted that during the investigation certain official files relating to the complainant’s property were found in the petitioner’s house and the investigation is still in progress to collect further evidence and examine witnesses. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the present crime was registered based on the complaint