Mahesh Narayan Bollamwar alias Bollamwar Shankar, v. The State Of Telangana

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO

Judgment date: 2026-04-29

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-29. Mahesh Narayan Bollamwar alias Bollamwar Shankar, v. The State Of Telangana. Read the judgment...

Judgment text

I [3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENW NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6801 OF 2026 Between: Mahesh Narayan Bollamwar @ Bollamwar Shankar, S/o. Narayan, Aged about 36 Yrs, Occ. Business R/o. Devi Galli, Patel Nagar, Dharmabad, Nanded District Maharashtra ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. 9 AND 1 The State Of Telangana, Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana. 2. M. Gangadhar, S/o Lingam Age. 36 yrs, Occ. Police Officer, Rl/o. Nizamabad North, Nizamabad ... RESPONDENTS/DE. FACTO GOMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of B. N. S. S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No g in Crime FIR No. 66 of 2025 of P. S. Nizamabad VTN, Nizamabad in the interest of justice l. A.

NO:2OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including taking any coercive steps/arrest of the Petitioner/Accused no 9 in FIR No. 66 of 2025 of P. S. Nizamabad WN, Nizamabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, Senior Counsel representing Mrs. A. Tejaswi, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos. l and 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH CO URT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J'SREENIVAS RAO CRTMINAL PETIT toN No. 680l of2O26 Date: 29. 04. 2026 Between: Botlamwar Shankar M-un.. h Nutuyan Bollamwar @ ...

Petitioner AND The State ol Telangana and another ... respondents ORDER 'I'his Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No. 9, seeking to quash the proceedings in F'I'R'No'66 of 2025 of Nizarnabad V Town Police Station, Nizamabad District, for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (4), 316(2), 6l(2) and I I I r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNS')' Sections 3 and 4 of the Telangana State Gaming Acr, 1974 (for short 'TSGA') and 66-D and 69 of the Inlormation Technology Act' 2008(lor short'lT Act'). 2. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, leamed Senior Counsel representing Ms. A. Tejaswi, leamed counsel for the petitioner' and Mr. Jithendar Rao veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor lor respondent Nos. I and 2-i1 :1. With the consent ol both the parties, the criminal petition is disposed ol'at the stage oladmission. 4.

I_earned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioncr has not cornmitted the alreged offences bnd has been rarsely implicatcd in the present case. Respondent No. 2 lodged the present complaint due to thc political rivalry between the petitioner and the mernbers ol- other political party. Even according to the allegations madc in rhc compraint. the ingredients of the offence under Section I I I of'BNS are not attractcd against the petitioner on the ground that as on today. except rhis crime, no other case is pending against the pctitioner. IJowcvcr. the Investigating Officer, without following the mandatorl, proccdure prescr. ibed under Section 35(3) of rhe Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2023 (for . BNSS. ) short and without lollou,ing the guidelines formulated by the Hon,ble Supreme Cou( in Arne sh Kumar Vs. State of Bihart, irnplicated the petitioner as an accused lor the ollence under Section I I I ol the BNS.

He further submitted that the other oflences alleged against the petitioner are punisltablc with irnprisonment of less than seven years. He flur. ther submitted that, subsequent to the filing of the present criminal petition, thc lather of the petitioner died on 2g. 04. 2}26,and he has placed a col. ly of thc death certificate on record. [{ence. the '(2o ta) 8 scc -' )11"-continuation ol the proccedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of larr', 5. Per contra, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that whether the petitioner has commifled any offence or not, the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially investigation is under progress. Hence, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. 6. It is very much relevant to extract Section I tl and explanation 2 of BNS which reads as under: (l) Any contin ng unlawful activity including kietnapping, robbery. vehicla theft. e ortion.

land S4rabhing, conlract killing. econonb offence. cyber-crines, trafficking of persons, drugs, \tcapons or illicit gootls or sert'ica. t, human trafficking proslitulion for or ransom, by uny person or a group of persons ocling i concerl, singly or jointl. v. either as a menber of an organised crine s)4tdicate or on behalf of such syndicale. by use of violence thraat of riolence. inlintidation, cocrcion. or by an! othar unlou,ful neons to oblain direct or indirect tolerial he alil including a fnanciol beneft. sholl constitute organi:ed crinru. (ii) "continuing unlauful activity" mean. t an octivity prohibited by law which is o cognizoble olfence punishable wilh imprisonnenl oJ lhree years or uore. undertaken by any person, either singly or jointly, os a member of an I organised critne s),ndicate or on behalf Ltf .

such stttdicctte in respect of which ntore lhon one chorpie-sheels hqt'e been I belore o cot petent Court within filed the preceding period of len years and thal Court has taken cognizance of such offence, and include. s economic ofence,. 7. The above said provision clearly reveals that if more than one charge sheet has been filed belore competent Court against the petitioner, then only the ingredients of the olfence under Section I I I of BNS are attracted. Even according to the parties, as on today, ,:! except tiiis crime. no other case is pending against the petitioner. Herrce. this Courr is of the prima facle vieu, that ingredients of the ollence under Secrion I I I ol BNS are not attracted. ln respect of the other ollences levelled against the petitioner, the imprisonment is less than seven years. 8. I)uring the course olhearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Investigating Officer had issued notice under Secrion i5(3 ) o1'rhc' BNSS io some of the accused.

Hence, the Investigating Officer is directcd to firllow, the procedurc contemplated under Scction i5(i ) ol rhe BNSS and follow the guidelines issued bv the Apcx Courr in,4rnesh Kumor (supra). 9 Accoldingll,. the Criminal petition is disposed of. Pending misccllaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed SD/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 1 //TRUE COPY// '.. -,. - <* l-:,/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Nizamabad V TN, Nizamabad Diskict. 2. One CC to Mrs. A. Tejaswi, Advocate tOpUCl 3 Two ccs to PUBLTC pRosECUToR High court for the State of retangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies M BA,/ABK I I HIGH COURT DATED: 2910412026 rrr]\, ,,,r. ';;r". :. ,i' '+\. i. ,. j v-i\ ORDER q 2$2[ rr3 ? [Pfl i. ii -.. t1 l',i. r'/ CRLP. No. 6801 of 2026 . :,'. ! , t- lit \.. ,' -\. _,-. ,// '\'. it' ;:Y DISPOSlNG OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1b t\

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.