Telangana High Court
Mohd.Shahnawaz Uddin vs State Of Telangana, on 26 November, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.13021 OF 2025
ORDER :
This criminal petition is filed under Section 483 (2) of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by
the petitioner/defacto complainant seeking to cancel the bail
granted by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.951 of 2025 in
Cr.No.501 of 2025 of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad. The
trial Court granted bail to A.1 and A.2 in the said crime, vide
Crl.M.P.No.951 of 2025 on 20.08.2025. The offences alleged
against the accused are under Sections 336(2), 318(4), 338 and
340(2) r/w.61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. Heard Sri M. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner/defacto complainant and Sri Dharmesh
D.K.Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2
and 3/A.1 and A.2 and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the defacto complainant lodged a complaint against respondent
Nos.2 and 3/A.1 and A.2 basing on which the police registered
the case against the accused for the above offences, they were
arrested on 08.08.2025 and A.1 and A.2 were remanded to
judicial custody. A.1 and A.2 filed bail application vide
Crl.M.P.No.951 of 2025 before the trial Court seeking regular
bail and the trial Court by order dated 20.08.2025 granted bail
without taking into consideration the counter filed by the
prosecution, simply observing that the accused are undertaking
to abide by any conditions that the court imposes and thereby
imposed certain conditions. He further contended that while
considering the bail application, the learned Magistrate has not
at all considered the nature of offence, involvement of the
accused persons in the offence nor the counter submissions of
the prosecution and the crime is under investigation and
moreover no reasons are assigned while granting bail. Granting
of bail was seriously opposed on the ground that whereabouts of
A.3 to A.9 are not known to the police and several key witnesses
including the attesting witnesses to the sale deed, staff from the
Registration Office remain to be examined and that the accused
are closely acquainted with the said witnesses.
4. Learned counsel further contended that the trial Court
has not considered that A.2 holds MBA from California and
previously resided abroad and there is every chance of his
fleeing away from the Country. A.1 and A.2 have no permanent
residence or nature of availability to the police. The trial Court
failed to appreciate that the signature of Sajjad Ali Baig was
forged by A.2 and created the document styled as General Power
of Attorney, but there was no stamping of notary made at
St.Louis County, State of Missouri. Sajjad Ali Baig never
resided in the address mentioned in the alleged GPA and
without considering the severity of allegations against A.1 and
A.2, the trial Court granted bail. Hence, prayed this Court to
cancel the bail granted to A.1 and A.2.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2
and 3/A.1 and A.2 filed counter denying the averments of
petition stating that there is no such illegality in granting bail.
A.1 and A.2 are co-operating with the investigating agency. A.1
and A.2 were arrested on 08.08.2025 and they were sent to
judicial custody and trial Court granted bail on 20.08.2025 and
after release, A.1 and A.2 are obeying the conditions imposed by
the trial Court. The petitioner herein has mischievously filed
the present petition with mis-leading stories stating that A.1
and A.2 approached him and threatened him for settlement.
A.1 and A.2 have not contacted either the defacto complainant
or the witnesses and they are cooperating with the investigation.
Learned counsel also submitted that the other accused in this
case are granted pre-arrest bail by this Court, as such, there is
no question of other accused absconding. Hence, prayed this
Court to dismiss this petition.
6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel
and the material on record, this petition is filed only on the
ground that no reasons are assigned by the trial Court while
granting bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein
relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P v
State of Madhya Pradesh and another 1 , wherein it was
observed that unreasoned order can be canceled even though
there are no violations of conditions imposed by the trial Court.
In the present case, the alleged offences are under Sections
336(2), 318(4), 338 and 340(2) r/w.61(2) of BNS. The allegation
is that the accused forged the document. Further the
prosecution also filed police custody petition and the same was
allowed and the accused were given to police custody on
19.08.2025 and again they were produced on 20.08.2025.
Therefore, it cannot be said that no opportunity was given to the
investigating authority for collection of evidence. Mere non-
furnishing of reasons by the trial Court, the accused cannot be
made to suffer as they were in jail for 12 days. The allegations
are mainly based on the documentary evidence and the police
have already taken the accused into police custody. The
1 (2022) 15 Supreme Court Cases 211
judgment in Mahipal V Rajesh Kumar 2 pertains to the offence
under Section 302 of IPC, and in Manik Madhukar Sarve and
Others Vs Vitthal Damuji Meher 3 huge amount is involved
whereas in the present case the allegations pertains to forgery of
signature of complainant and the investigating agency has
concluded the investigation, the custodial interrogation of the
accused is not required. Merely non assigning reasons in the
order, the accused cannot be made to suffer. Hence, there are
no merits in this petition 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 :26.11.2025
Rds
2 (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 118
3 (2024) 10 Supreme Court Cases 753
