Mr. Mohammed Khan vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, accused No. 1, sought pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 86 of 2025, registered for offences under Sections 318(4), 336, 338, and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) Act, 2023. The prosecution alleged that on July 29, 2025, a complaint was lodged stating that E-Way Bills were generated fraudulently by GST taxpayers for vehicle No. AP 29 TA 7213, for transporting goods from June 2025 onwards, without actual movement of goods. The petitioner is identified as the driver of the vehicle. The petitioner's counsel argued that other accused had been released on bail after paying fines, and the petitioner was unaware of this. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the serious nature of the allegations and the ongoing investigation.

Held

The Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that the alleged offences were punishable under Sections 318(4), 336, 338, and 61(2) of the BNS Act, 2023. It was observed that other accused involved in the case had already paid the fine amount for the violation. Considering these facts and the petitioner's role as the driver, the Court deemed it fit to grant pre-arrest bail. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, EOW Team 1, CCS, DD Police Station, Hyderabad District, within two weeks. Upon surrender, the petitioner was to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties for the like sum. The petitioner was also mandated to abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 482(2) of the BNS Act, 2023, cooperate with the investigation, and appear before the Investigating Officer every Monday until the filing of the charge sheet, and thereafter as required.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of fraudulent E-Way Bill generation and the fact that other accused have been released on bail after paying fines? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued for pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that other accused involved in the same case have already been released on anticipatory bail after paying the stipulated fine for the violation. The petitioner claimed ignorance of these proceedings and sought similar relief. Revenue/State's contention: The State opposed the pre-arrest bail, asserting that the allegations against the petitioner are serious. It was further submitted that the petitioner is involved with other accused in the alleged offences and that the investigation is not yet complete. Therefore, granting pre-arrest bail at this stage was deemed inappropriate.