Telangana High Court
Haleema Alias Halima Gous Shaik vs The State Of Telangana on 21 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1201 of 2025
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 petitioners who are
arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 5 in Crime No.141 of 2024
before the Mudhole Police Station, Nirmal District,
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 118(1)
read with 3(5) of BNS, 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on
November 9, 2024, Elme Khanderao, a 40-year-old resident
of Singangaon, lodged a complaint with the Tanoor Police
Station, alleging that his son, Vishal, had fallen in love with
Anzum, the niece of his friend Anwar. The couple had eloped
on October 28, 2024, and had gotten married with the
consent of their families. However, Anzum's family
members, including her brother Mujju, mother Haleema,
and father Shaik Gouse, opposed to the marriage and had
been threatening Elme Khanderao and his family. On
SKS,J
November 9, 2024, Elme Khanderao, along with the village
sarpanch, Jadav Maruthi, Jadav Sahebrao, and Jadav
Sathya Narayana, went to Mudhole High School to discuss
the issue with Anzum's family members. However, the
meeting turned violent when allegedly, the petitioners and
their accomplices attacked Elme Khanderao and his
companions, injuring them mercilessly. The attackers also
damaged the property of Elme Khanderao and his family
members. Based on the complaint lodged by Elme
Khanderao, the police registered a case under Sections
118(1), r/w 3(2)(va) of the SC ST POA Act, and are
investigating the matter. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal
petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri S.Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for
petitioners, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
registration of crime against the petitioners is an abuse of
process of law and bad in law, as the police registered the
FIR without conducting a preliminary enquiry and are now
SKS,J
attempting to arrest the petitioners without any evidence.
He contended that the complaint is based on assumptions
and presumptions, with no adduced evidence, and that the
police have failed to follow the guidelines of issuing a 41-A
notice to the petitioners. He asserted that the petitioners are
innocent, with no allegations against them, and are the sole
breadwinners for their families, as such, prayed this Court
to allow the criminal petition, granting the relief of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by
learned counsel for petitioners, stating that Section 118(1) of
BNS, is a scheduled offence, and that there is no dispute of
the fact that de facto complainant belongs to scheduled
community, therefore, the petition itself is not maintainable,
as such, prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on
going through the material placed on record, it is noted that
with regard to the maintainability of petition, learned
counsel for petitioners placed reliance on the judgment
SKS,J
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India 1 whereunder, it
was observed that when there is no prima facie evidence
against the accused, so as to attract the scheduled offence,
the relief of anticipatory bail can be granted to the accused,
further, that while considering any application seeking pre-
arrest bail, the High Court has to balance the two interests,
i.e., that the power is not used as to convert the jurisdiction
into that under Section 438 of CPC but that it is used
sparingly and such orders are made in very exceptional
cases where no prima facie offence is made out as shown in
FIR, whereas, in the case on hand, it is to be noted that the
allegation against the petitioners is that they indulged in the
crime when A1 attacked de facto complainant. Further,
there is no dispute of the fact that de facto complainant
belongs to scheduled community, as such, the offence under
Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act was registered against
the petitioners and other accused. Furthermore, Section
118(1) of BNS is scheduled offence.
AIR 2020 SC 1036
SKS,J
7. In addition, the remand report would show that de
facto complainant was severely injured due to the alleged
incident, therefore, it can be held that prima facie, there is
assault on de facto complainant, as such, there is no doubt
that this petition is maintainable. Therefore, though learned
counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment rendered
in Prathvi Raj (supra) the same does not come to their aid.
However, considering the fact that A1 was already granted
bail by the trial Court, this Court deems it fit to direct the
petitioners to surrender before the trial Court and file a bail
petition. On such surrender and filing of bail petition, the
trial Court is directed to consider the same.
8. With the above directions, this Criminal Petition is
disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 21.02.2025
PT
SKS,J
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1201 of 2025
Date: 21.02.2025
PT
