Anthati T hirurnaiesh Goud @ Thirumai Goud, v. State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K. SUJANA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-02-24. Anthati T hirurnaiesh Goud @ Thirumai Goud, v. State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
I I i I : i IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA I AT HYDERABAD I TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND I TWENry SIX I I PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA I CRIMINAL PETI TION NO: 1635 OF 2026 i Between: i Anthati T hirurnaiesh Goud @ Thirumai Goud,, S/o Anthati Bikshipathi Goud. aged about 40 years, Occ Business. R/o. No.. 2-30, lnamguda,' lnamguda, Rangareddi I ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 3 AND i of Telang. ana, Rep. By its Public prosecutor, 9tate High Court for the State of I elangana at Hyderabad Through P. S. Nagole, R. R. District. ... RESPONDENT Petition under section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No. 3 on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with crime No. 705 ol 2oz5 on the file of Nagole P. s.
Ranga Reddy d istrict/Rach a kond a during pendency the of inquiry and'irial and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mohd Akram Uddin Khan, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER . i/ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD JI'STICE K. SUJANA THE HONOURABLE SMT oF 2026 CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1635 24. O2. 2026 Between: Goud Thirumal Goud Anth. rti Thirumalesh @ Petitioner/ A 3 And 'll-re State of Telangana, Rcp..
by its Public Prosecutor, of Telangana, Higl-r Court for the State At Hvderabad through PS Nagole Responclcnt : ORDER: filed under Section 482 of is This criminal Pe tition the Sanhita, 2O2:, bY Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha bail in connection with petitioner/A. 3 seeking anticipatory Nagole Police Station, Ranga Rcddy Crinre No. 7O5 of '2025 of against the petitioncr are under District. Thc offences alleged Nvav:r Sanhita' 3aO(2) Bharatiya S('ctions 31S(4), 3. 38, 336(3), ot 2O23 (tor short 'BNSJ. +. ,l} 2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint w,as lodged on 3O. O9 . 2025 from Gowrishetty Chandraiah, who claimed to be the absolute owner and possessor plot of No. 346 in Survey No. 429 of Pasumamula Village, purchased through a registered sale deed dated 30. 06,1986. He a eged that during a visit to the plot on 23. 09 .
2025, he found certain individuals including Shaik Johnny and two women claiming ownership based on a forged death ccrti{-icate and a fabricated family certihcate falsely stating that complainant and his wife were deceased and that the womcn were thcir claughters. He further alleged that these individuals lrad executed and registered a fake sale deed dated 22. O9. 2025 in favor of Shaik Johnny. Upon discovering this, he approerched ttre Sub Registrar,s Office, obtained the Encumbrance Certificate (EC) confirming the land was still in his name, and lodged the complaint. 3. Heard Sri Mohd. Akram Uddin Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent_ S tate. 4.
The contention of learned counsel for the pctitioner is that petitioner is falsely implicated in this case and he had no role in documents' He the allegeci preparing or registering the forged I that materiai part of investigation is already I furtht:r contended A l and A 2 in of documents' The completcd including recovery such' arrested and released on bail' as this casc are zllrearly is not required' of the petitioner herein custodizrl intcrrogatiol-t Hcnt:c, prayt:d this Court to grant anticipator]' bail to the pctrtloncr ()n Additional Public Prosecutor 5. tht other hand, learned ) \ against the petitioner opposed b:ril stating that the allegations I { roie The petitioner hercin played a kcy in art- serious in nature. this offcncc. ['le conspired with A. I and A'2, created' exccuted and lorgecl the do<:uments. Hence, petitioner is not entitlcd for barl and pravcd to dismiss this petitiot-t' 6. Cor.
rsidering thc submissions made by both the counsel ancl the malerial placed on record, prima facie' the main allegation against the petitioner is that he actively participated u ith thc othi:r accused in the creation and facilitation of forged documcnts, including a fabricated death certificate and family ct rtifictrtc. Thesc documents were allegedly use d in the cxecution and registration of a disputed sale deed dated 2 2 . Og . 2O 25 Further there are no changed circumstances from the earlier bail application to the present bait application As such, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner at this stage and the same is liable to be dismissed' dismissed 7. Accordingly, the Crirninal Petition is shall stand Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pcnding closed. SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// 6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional Junior civil Judge --cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rangareddy District at L. B.
Nagar. 2. The Station House Officer,Nagole Police Station, Hyderabad, Rangareddy District. 3. One CC to Sri. Mohd Akram Uddin Khan' Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies. PSK /PSL \ t I HIGH COURT DATED:2410212026 r \i1 TJ (. . J () mls ')- 2 t itlR ORDER l,) 'lt2+ 'ir: t * GRLP. No. 1635 of 2026 't''... 3.... i olr,,t';! -=::. _--. _;_- DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 9L )l
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.