Telangana High Court
Mohd Ismail Biyabani Fruit Mohammed vs The Station House Officer on 11 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6911, 6503, 6719 and 7718 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
Criminal Petition Nos.6503 and 6719 are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS') seeking anticipatory bail to accused Nos.11 and 12 respectively; Criminal Petition No.6911 of 2025 is filed by accused Nos.9 and 10 and Criminal Petition No.7718 of 2025 is filed by accused No.5 under Section 480 and 483 of BNSS seeking bail; in connection with Crime No.63 of 2025 of Rein Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 103 read with 3(5), 190 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 4 read with 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. Hence, all the four criminal petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Brief facts of case:
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 14.04.2025 at around 03:00 hours, a complaint was received from L.W.1-
Mohammed Mudassir Uddin, stating that approximately at about 01:17 hours, he received a call from his father informing that his brother Masiuddin was being attacked near Deluxe Medical Shop, Dabeerpura, Hyderabad. On reaching the spot, L.W.1 found his 2 brother dead with multiple stab injuries. He further alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 and other accused attacked and murdered his brother with knives. He further stated that earlier on 23.03.2025, during Ramadan, the same persons had physically assaulted his brother. He also expressed suspicion that two other individuals, namely, Junaid (accused No.11), who is the owner of Amjad Sarees, Patel Market, and Shiraaj (accused No.10), who is the owner of SK Footwear, conspired in the murder by engaging accused No.1 to execute the crime. Based on the said complaint, the present crime was registered for the aforementioned offences.
3. Heard Sri C.Sunil Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.6503 of 2025, Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Syed Yousuf, learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.6719 of 2025, Sri Mohd. Muzaferullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition Nos.6911 and 7718 of 2025 and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- State.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners:
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/accused No.12 in Criminal Petition No.6503 of 2025 submitted that there are no 3 allegations against the petitioner to connect him with the present crime. The prosecution has not attributed any role against the petitioner either in the complaint or in the remand case diary. The only allegation levelled against him is that he has supported the other accused and the petitioner was not present at the scene of offence. Hence, the ingredients under Section 103 of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the deceased is a rowdy sheeter and a rowdy sheet was opened against him in Falaknama Police Station and the same is continuing. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and also abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.12.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.11 in Criminal Petition No.6503 of 2025 submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present crime only basing upon the alleged confession statement given by accused No.9. He further submitted that the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he has given moral support to accused Nos.1 to 10 that if they commit the offence, he will take care of their respective families and bring them out on bail. There is no piece of evidence to connect the petitioner in the present 4 crime. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.11.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.5 in Crl.P.No.7718 of 2025 submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submitted that there are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner and his name was not mentioned in the complaint. However, basing upon the confession statement given by accused No.1 only, he was implicated as accused No.5. The petitioner does not have any enmity with the deceased and he was not present at the scene of offence. The petitioner was arrested on 16.04.2025 and since more than 80 days, he is in judicial custody and the entire investigation has been completed except filing of the charge sheet. He also submitted that the Investigation Officer has taken the petitioner into police custody and conducted investigation and further custodial interrogation is not required and he is not having any criminal antecedents. He further submitted that the petitioner is eking out his livelihood by doing small business and his entire family depending upon his income only and he is having small children and old aged parents and his physical presence is very much required to look after their welfare. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.9 and 10 in Criminal Petition Nos.6911 of 2025 submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in the present crime. The alleged incident has took place on the intervening night of 13/14.04.2025 at 03.00 a.m. whereas the de facto complainant lodged the complaint on 14.04.2025 at 01.17 p.m. and the de facto complainant has not given any reason for the said delay. He further submitted that initially the crime was registered against accused five persons only and subsequently implicated the petitioners only basing upon the confession statement given by accused No.5. He also submitted that either in the complaint or in the Remand Case Diary-I, there are no allegations levelled against the petitioners and they were not arrayed as accused. He further submitted that the witnesses, who were examined by the prosecution, have not stated anything against the petitioners and the petitioners were not present at the scene of offence. The petitioners were arrested on 28.04.2025 and since more than 70 days they were in judicial custody. The Investigation Officer has taken the petitioners to police custody and conducted investigation, which shows that entire investigation has been completed except filing of charge sheet. He further submitted that no further custodial interrogation is required. The deceased is 6 a rowdy sheeter and he was accused in several other cases. The petitioners are doing small business and their entire family members are depending upon their income and they are also having small children and old aged parents. The petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation if any and also abide by the conditions which are going to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.9 and 10.
8. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 1.
Submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:
9. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have committed the grave offence. In the Remand Case Diary-I and II, the role of each petitioner was specifically mentioned and also there are specific overt acts against the petitioners to connect them with the present crime. He further submitted that during the course of investigation, accused Nos.1 to 8 specifically stated in their statements that accused Nos.9 and 10 have burnt the bloodstained clothes with an intention to disappear 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157 7 the evidence and to prevent the sniffer dogs to discover the evidence He further submitted that according to the statement of accused No.9, who is collecting rent on behalf of accused No.11, the deceased was harassing accused No.11 and interfering in his business and therefore, accused No.11 requested accused No.9 to stop the activities of the deceased. Basing on the request of accused No.11, accused No.9 contacted accused No.10 and they both came to know that there was enmity between the deceased and accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused Nos.9 and 10 have introduced accused No.1 to accused No.11, who has encouraged accused No.1 to eliminate the deceased. He further submitted that accused No.12 gave assurance that he will provide two of his henchmen to carry out for commission of crime. There are specific allegations levelled against accused No.5 that he along with accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 to 8 have committed the murder of the deceased and accused No.5 was present at the scene of offence.
10. He also submitted that this is a case of criminal conspiracy that the petitioners along with other accused have committed the offence and during the course of investigation, the Investigation Officers have obtained call data records of the petitioners, which clearly establishes that there was a conversation between the petitioners and other accused persons prior to the commission of 8 offence, during the occurrence of offence and after the offence. The said call data clearly indicates the involvement of the petitioners and other accused and coordination among them in commission of offence. The investigation is under progress and at this stage, if the petitioners are granted bail, they will interfere with the investigation, tamper with the evidence and will influence the witnesses. Hence, he prayed to dismiss all the bail petitions.
11. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagjeet Singh and others vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu and another 2.
Reply Submissions:
12. Sri Krishna Prakash, learned counsel, representing Sri C.Sunil Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.11 in Criminal Petition No.6503 of 2025, submitted that in Remand Case Diary-I, there are no specific allegations against accused No.11, however, basing on the alleged confession statement given by accused No.9, he was implicated in this case. He further submitted that on perusal of the call date produced by the prosecution, it was revealed that accused No.9 received three calls from accused No.11 and those calls were also prior to the 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376 9 alleged incident and there is no telephonic conversation from the date of the alleged offence. He further submitted that in respect of criminal antecedents as alleged in the counter affidavit, those crimes are pertaining to 2013, 2015 and 2024 and the said crimes are nothing to do with the present crime, especially as per Section 49 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). The pendency of other cases is not a ground to deny for grant of bail. He further submitted that accused No.11 was implicated in the present crime only basing on the alleged confession statement given by the other accused and the same is not permissible under law. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner/accused No.11.
13. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. 3.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition Nos.6911 and 7718 of 2025 by way of reply submitted that the judgment which is relied upon by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Jagjeet Singh supra is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that the Investigation Officer has not examined any shop owners and there 3 (2020) 11 SCC 648 10 is no prima facie evidence to connect the petitioners/accused Nos.9 and 10 with the present crime. He also submitted that accused Nos.9 and 10 were implicated in the present case basing upon the confession statement given by the other accused through Remand Case Diary-II only and the same is not permissible under law. Even according to the call data, three calls were received by accused No.9 from accused No.11 prior to the alleged incident. He further submitted that in respect of accused No.10 is concerned, two outgoing calls and one incoming call was received from accused No.1 and those calls are prior to the incident only. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.5, 9 and
10.
15. Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Syed Yousuf, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.12 in Criminal Petition No.6719 of 2025 vehemently contended that the petitioner was implicated in the present crime as accused No.12 basing on the confession statement given by the other accused and there are no allegations against him either in the complaint or in the Remand Case Diary-I and the prosecution made allegations against the petitioner in Remand Case Diary-II only. The petitioner is not present at the scene of offence and his involvement is remote. Even according to the call data relied upon the 11 prosecution, the petitioner has received three calls from accused Nos.9 to 11 and there are no specific overt acts against him to connect with the present crime. Insofar as the allegation made by the prosecution in the counter affidavit in respect of criminal antecedents against the petitioner is concerned, in S.C.No.645 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and C.C.No.333 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, accused No.11 was acquitted and in respect of C.C.No.1136 of 2008 on the file of the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is concerned, the said case was ended pursuant to the Lok Adalat Award dated 07.01.2010. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and also abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Analysis:
16. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the de facto complainant, who is none other than the own brother of the deceased, lodged a complaint on 14.04.2025. In the said complaint, he specifically mentioned that accused Nos.1 to 3 and others attacked his brother and stabbed 12 him with knives and committed murder. It is further stated in the complaint that he suspects accused Nos.10 and 11 and as a result of their conspiracy, the other accused committed the brutal murder of his brother. Basing on the said complaint, Rein Bazar Police Station, registered Crime No.63 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 103 read with 3(5), 190 and 61(2) of the BNS and Section 4 read with 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. The police arrested accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 8 on 15.04.2025 and accused No.5 was arrested on 16.04.2025 and they were produced before the concerned Court and remanded to judicial custody. In the Remand Case Diary-I and II, the role of each accused was specifically mentioned. The Investigating Officer after taking custodial interrogation of accused Nos.1 to 8, arrested accused No.9 and 10 on 28.04.29025 and they were produced before the concerned Court for judicial custody. In the Remand Case Diary-II, the role of accused No.9 to 12 has been specifically mentioned. The allegation levelled against accused Nos.1 to 8 is that they have murdered the deceased on the intervening night of 13/14.04.2025. In the statement of accused No.5, the role of accused Nos.9 and 10 has been elicited. Similarly, accused Nos.9 and 10 stated in their statements the role of accused Nos.11 and 12. The record further reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioners 13 that they conspired together and eliminated the deceased and each of them has played their role in committing the murder. The specific allegation against accused No.5 is that he is having rivalry with the deceased and to take revenge against him, he joined with accused No.1. Likewise, accused Nos.2 and 5 have joined with accused No.3 for murdering the deceased and accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 arranged the knives to accused Nos.1 to 4.
17. The record further reveals that accused Nos.1 to 10 maintained a close watch on the deceased movements. On 13.04.2025 at 11.00 p.m., all the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly at Dabeerpura fly over, armed with knives and thereafter, went to the house of accused No.4 at Farhath Nagar and waited for the deceased to come towards Dabeerpura bridge till 11.30 p.m., however, the deceased did not turn up. At that stage, the accused persons went to the house of accused No.3 situated near Dabeerpura to have dinner. At that time, accused No.2 made a phone call to accused No.3, who is none other than his brother, informed that the deceased was available beside Delux medical shop and accused Nos.1 to 8 have committed the offence at the intervening night of 13/14.04.2025 at 03.00 hours. 14
18. The Investigating Officer specifically mentioned about the role of accused Nos.9 and 10 and other accused in the Remand Case Diary I and II. The specific allegation levelled against the petitioners is that there is conspiracy between the petitioners and other accused and there is call conversations among the accused persons prior to the commission of the offence, at the time of the offence and after the offence.
19. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel as well as learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners/accused Nos.9 to 12 were implicated in the present crime, only basing on the confession statement given by the other accused, which cannot be taken into consideration strongly relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy supra is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment held that a confession made by an accused, particularly before the police, is inadmissible in evidence due to the bar under Sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act, and thus cannot be relied upon even at the stage of anticipatory or regular bail. For a confession to be considered under Section 30, it must be relevant, admissible, duly proved against the maker, and both the maker and co-accused must be jointly tried for the same offence. Such a confession can only be used, at most, as a rule of 15 prudence to support other independent evidence during trial and not at the bail stage. Furthermore, any statement made by an accused implicating another co-accused, whether confessional or merely an admission, cannot be used against the co-accused due to the principle that admissions are only admissible against their maker, and no exception under the Evidence Act allows their use against a co-accused, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners pertains to Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the case on hand pertains to heinous crime committed against the deceased as well as the society, especially the specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioners/accused Nos.9 to 12 were not implicated as accused and basing upon the statements of other accused, the role of the petitioners and specific overt acts against the petitioners were elicited in the Remand Case Diary-I and II, and further the call data records between the accused persons prior to the commission of the offence and after the offence reveals that there is conspiracy between the petitioners/accused Nos.9 to 12 and other accused, as a result of their conspiracy, accused Nos.1 to 8 have committed the brutal murder of the deceased.
16
20. Similarly, the judgment which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused No.9 and 10 in Crl.R.C.No.58 of 2021 passed by this Court dated 03.09.2021 is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, since accused No.4 questioning the dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.55 of 2020 seeking to discharge him for the alleged offences on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, he filed Crl.R.C.No.58 of 2021 and the same was allowed and accused No.4 has discharged.
21. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.6503 of 2025 that the name of accused No.11 was not mentioned either in the complaint or in the Remand Case Diary-I and his name was included in the Remand Case Diary-II basing upon the confessional statement given by accused No.9 and the same is not permissible under law and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari supra is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the High Court's decision to grant bail to the accused, Vikram Singh, despite the seriousness of the offence under Section 302 read with other IPC provisions and the fact that multiple criminal cases were pending against him and the Court noted that the main prosecution statement, recorded after 50 days, was contested as unreliable, and the accused was not named in the initial FIR or early witness 17 statements, however, subsequent statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. mentioned his involvement and the Court found no illegality, arbitrariness, or non-application of mind in the High Court's order and concluded that mere gravity of offence or past cases cannot be sole grounds for denying bail, hence, the appeal challenging the bail was dismissed, and the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, since the name of accused No.11 was mentioned in the complaint given by the de facto complainant/LW.1 and prima facie, accused No.11 has modus operandi, as he was harassed by the deceased, who was interfering with his business activities, and hence, he contacted accused No.9, who in turn, introduced accused No.1 to accused No.11 in order to eliminate the deceased and also there is specific allegation levelled against accused No.11 in the commission of the offence.
22. Insofar as the contention of the learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel for the petitioners that mere conversation among the accused persons is not a ground to implicate the accused Nos.9 to 12, especially the prosecution has not placed any evidence that telephonic conversation is in respect of the alleged offence. Whether the conversation between the petitioners and other accused is in connection with the crime or not, is a triable issue 18 and the same will come into light during the course of investigation or trial and this Court is of the considered view that such stage is not yet reached.
23. It is already stated supra, there are specific allegations levelled against accused Nos.10 and 11 in the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant. Similarly, there are specific allegations levelled against accused Nos.9 and 12 in respect of their role and conspiracy among the accused persons and the record discloses that there is a clear link among the accused persons prior to the date of incident.
24. Insofar as the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the deceased was a rowdy sheeter and a rowdy sheet was opened against him at Falaknama Police Station and the deceased harassed the shop owners in Patel Market and collected the amounts by threatening them and the petitioners have not committed the offence, however, the petitioners were falsely implicated in the present crime is concerned, whether the petitioners were falsely implicated or not will come into light upon completion of investigation and the charge sheet has also not been filed.
19
25. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.11 in Crl.P.No.6503 of 2025 submitted that accused No.11 is the owner of five (5) shops only, however, the prosecution alleged that he is owner of 150 shops and the same is not true and correct and he was falsely implicated in the present crime solely basing upon the confessional statement of the petitioner/accused No.9. It is already stated supra, there is a specific allegation against accused Nos.1 to 8 that they committed the murder and they were present at the scene of offence, whereas accused Nos.9 and 10 has burnt the blood stained clothes of accused Nos.1 to 8 in order to destroy the evidence and the specific allegations levelled against accused No.11 is that he had initiated the said offence due to the enmity between the deceased and him on collection of rent amounts from shop owners.
26. It is relevant to mention that in State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborated on the well-settled principles governing the grant or refusal of bail. The Court emphasized that bail decisions must consider several factors, such as the prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the offence, likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence, and the accused's conduct and background. Vague 4 (2005) 8 SCC 21 20 apprehensions are not sufficient to deny bail, but credible material showing the accused's intent to obstruct justice can justify refusal. Applying these principles, the Court held that the High Court erred in granting bail to Amarmani Tripathi, as there was substantial material indicating his involvement in tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, and interfering with the investigation. The Court noted that he tried to mislead the probe by fabricating evidence and bribing key witnesses. As for Madhumani, although she lacked a criminal history and had not overtly interfered with the investigation, her abscondence and the risk of her continuing her husband's acts of manipulation justified cancellation of her bail as well. The Court clarified that references to "evidence" pertained only to the material collected during the investigation and would not influence the trial Court.
27. Similarly, in Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another 5, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the well-established principles governing the grant of bail, emphasizing that each case must be evaluated on its own merits with a judicious exercise of discretion. The Court observed that relevant considerations include the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, peculiar circumstances relating to the accused, the 5 (2018) 12 SCC 129 21 likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, potential tampering with evidence or witnesses, and the overall impact on society. Significantly, the Court relied on and reaffirmed the principles laid down in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, thereby reiterating the legal position that vague or isolated grounds cannot justify bail where there is sufficient material to show possible interference with the investigation or trial. In the present case, although the Sessions Court had granted bail to Anil Kumar Yadav citing discrepancies in CCTV footage and lack of direct role attribution, the Supreme Court noted that this ignored the weight of evidence, including statements of multiple eyewitnesses and the recovery of incriminating material. The judgment makes clear that bail cannot be granted by overlooking credible material and that courts must record reasoned findings even at the pre-trial stage, guided by the holistic principles already laid down in earlier precedents such as Amarmani Tripathi.
28. It is already stated supra, the petitioners were implicated as accused basing upon the confessional statement given by the other accused, the role of the each petitioner was elicited in the Remand Case Diary-I and II, and there are specific overt acts against them. Further, as per the call data records between the accused persons prior to the commission of the offence and after the offence reveal 22 that there is conspiracy between the petitioners/accused Nos.9 to 12 and other accused, as a result of their conspiracy, accused Nos.1 to 8 have committed the brutal murder of the deceased, basing upon this, the petitioners were implicated as accused in the present crime.
29. In the case on hand, the prosecution specifically pleaded in their counter affidavit that due to fear of the accused persons, the eye witnesses and other witnesses are not coming forward to give statements under Section 183 of the BNSS and also for Test Identification Parade. Even according to the prosecution, accused Nos.5, 10, 11 and 12 are having criminal antecedents. At this stage, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is a serious threat on the de facto complainant as well as other witnesses. The record reveals that there is specific role attributed against each of the petitioners and they share a common intention to eliminate the deceased as they all have rivalry with the deceased. Even according to the prosecution, the investigation is under progress and the charge sheet has not been filed.
30. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, serious allegations levelled against the petitioners and the gravity of the offence, especially when the investigation is under 23 progress as well as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned supra, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail in favour of accused Nos.5, 9 and 10 and anticipatory bail in favour of accused Nos.11 and 12.
31. Accordingly, all the criminal petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 11.07.2025
mar/pgp