Telangana High Court
Shaik Raheem @ Abdul Raheem vs The Union Of India on 20 April, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 25295 OF 2025
20.04.2026
Between:
Shaik Raheem @ Abdul Raheem
..... Petitioner
And
The Union of India,
Rep. by it Under Secretary,
Ministry of Home, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi & another
..... Respondents
O R D E R:
The case of petitioner is that FIR No.141 of 2022
dated 04.07.2022 was registered at VI Town Police Station,
Nizamabad District, Telangana under Sections 120B, 121A,
153A, 141 read with 34 IPC. and Section 13(1)(b) of the UA(P)
Act against certain accused persons. Respondent – National
Investigating Agency (NIA), Hyderabad took over the investigation
and re-registered the case as RC-03/2022/NIA/HYD on
26.08.2022 at NIA Police Station, Hyderabad under Sections
120B, 121A, 153A, 141 read with 34 IPC. and Sections 13(1)(b),
18A and 18B of the UA(P) Act, 1967. Thereafter, NIA, on
29.12.2022, filed a charge sheet against eleven accused persons
2
before the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Court for NIA Cases at Hyderabad and the same was
numbered as Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2023.
1.1. It is stated, on 16.03.2023, NIA filed a
supplementary charge sheet against five accused persons
including petitioner and arrayed them as Accused 32 to 36 in
Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2023. On 21.09.2023, the Learned IV Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for NIA Cases at
Hyderabad disposed Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2023 and clubbed the same
with Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2023 for common proceedings. In
Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2023, Respondent cited 85 witnesses and in the
supplementary charge sheet, cited 42 witnesses, and out of the
combined list, 46 witnesses are affiliated to the alleged
organization which is termed as unlawful, and from their
statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it
clearly appears that they are participants and members of the
alleged offences along with the accused persons including
petitioner.
1.2. Such persons, being participants/accomplices in the
alleged offence, it is stated, cannot have their statements
recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, and the only
legally-permissible procedure is under Section 306 Cr.P.C by
3
tender of pardon through Court, therefore, the entire statements
relied upon by the prosecution are contrary to law.
1.3. Respondent – NIA, under the guise of investigation,
summoned innocent individuals repeatedly under Section 160
Cr.P.C, detained them for long hours in the office, interrogated
them on irrelevant aspects, and by instilling fear of
incarceration, compelled them to give statements under Section
161 Cr.P.C and sponsored statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C
to suit the narrative of the Agency. The witnesses were
specifically threatened that if they do not cooperate and accept
the version of the Respondent, they would also be implicated as
accused and would remain in jail for 15 years, and such
coercion, repeated summoning and intimidation can be verified
from the case diary maintained under Section 172 Cr.P.C and
CCTV footage which the agency is bound to preserve.
1.4. It is alleged, Respondent had deliberately bypassed
the mandatory procedure under Section 306 Cr.P.C, which is
intended for the offences triable by Sessions Court and Special
Court, to prevent misuse and to ensure that accomplice evidence
is recorded only through judicial process after tender of pardon.
Instead of following Section 306 Cr.P.C, Respondent adopted an
illegal method by summoning persons under Section 160 Cr.P.C
4
and forcing them to give statements under Sections 161 and
164(5) Cr.P.C, thereby subverting the statutory safeguards.
Respondent has further concealed the identity of such witnesses
by invoking Section 44 of UA(P) Act and Section 17 of NIA Act
and treating them as protected witnesses without any judicial
order, whereas the law mandates that only the Court can declare
a witness as protected upon proper application. According to
petitioner, the entire statements recorded under Sections 161
and 164 Cr.P.C are the result of coercion, fear, intimidation and
illegal procedure and therefore are not admissible and are liable
to be quashed at the threshold.
1.5. It is stated, the co-accused had earlier filed Writ
Petition No.27309 of 2023 and Writ Appeal No.1005 of 2024
which were dismissed, however, petitioner states that the said
judgments are per incuriam as they failed to consider binding
statutory provisions and judgments and erroneously held that
the issue can be examined only after trial. Petitioner relies on
the judgment in Laxmipat Choraria v. State of
Maharashtra 1, wherein it is held that in cases triable by
Sessions Court or Special Court, if any promise of pardon or
influence is involved, the procedure prescribed under the Code
must be strictly followed. Further reliance is placed on Hyder
1
AIR 1968 SC 938
5
Consulting (UK) Pvt Ltd v. State of Orissa 2, particularly
paragraphs 46 and 47, which explain that a judgment rendered
in ignorance of binding law or statutory provision is per incuriam
and not a binding precedent.
1.6. Petitioner states that the central legal question for
consideration is whether statements of accomplices can be
recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, bypassing the
mandatory requirement of Section 306 Cr.P.C. Such procedural
illegality in recording statements goes to the root of the matter,
cannot be cured at any stage, and requires adjudication at the
pre-trial stage, as these statements form the basis of
prosecution, affect the petitioner’s right to fair investigation and
fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and also prejudice
him in matters of bail and discharge.
1.7. It is stated, Respondent – NIA had falsely implicated
petitioner as Accused No.32 in Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2023 by relying
on fabricated material, coerced statements and illegal procedure
under Sections 120B, 153A IPC and Sections 13(1)(b), 18, 18A
and 18B of the UA(P) Act, 1967, and the entire investigation is
vitiated by illegality, arbitrariness and violation of due process of
law.
2
(2015) 2 SCC 189
6
2. On behalf of Respondent – NIA, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police and Chief Investigation Officer of the
case, submits that petitioner is Accused No.32 in S.C.No.01 of
2023 pending before the IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Court for NIA Cases at Nampally, Hyderabad, and
being an accused, he is a third party to the statements
recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C and is not entitled
to seek quashing of such statements through writ jurisdiction
under Article 226, hence, the Writ Petition is not maintainable
and is liable to be dismissed and all the statements forming
part of the charge sheet were recorded strictly in accordance
with law after due notice and are valid and form part of the
prosecution case to be tested during trial.
2.1. It is stated, truthfulness, reliability and
admissibility of statements recorded under Sections 161 and
164 Cr.P.C fall within the exclusive domain of trial before the
Special Court, and petitioner will have full opportunity to cross-
examine the witnesses and cannot invoke Article 226 to
conduct a roving enquiry or to derail the prosecution at the
threshold stage. It is stated, case RC-03/2022/NIA/HYD
arises out of FIR No.141 of 2022 dated 04.07.2022 of VI Town
Police Station, Nizamabad, relating to a criminal conspiracy by
7
cadres of Popular Front of India (PFI) organizing terrorist camps
across Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, radicalizing Muslim
youth, recruiting them, delivering inflammatory speeches, and
training them to target and attack persons of specific religious
and political background using weapons such as sickle, knife
and iron rods.
2.2. It is stated, on 04.07.2022 Telangana State Police
conducted a raid at the house of Abdul Khader (A-1), a PFI
cadre and Karate Master in Nizamabad, and seized
incriminating material including Physical Efficiency training
articles such as bamboo sticks, white board, nunchakus,
podium, PFI Legal Awareness banner and sound system. FIR
No.141 of 2022 dated 04.07.2022 was registered under
Sections 120B, 121A, 153A, 141 read with 34 IPC and Section
13(1)(b) UA(P) Act against Accused 1 and 26 others; Accused
No.1 was arrested on the same day, and on 06.07.2022, Shaik
Shadullah (A-5), Mohammed Imran (A-24) and Mohammed
Abdul Mobin (A-28) were arrested.
2.3. During custodial interrogation, confession-cum-
seizure panchnama of Accused No. 1 was recorded, and
manuscripts including loose sheets, diaries and notebooks
containing handwriting of Accused 1, 2 and 4 were seized,
8
which contained details of 5-day Physical Efficiency training,
knife and Koduval attack techniques, instructions like keeping
boiling water, chilli, stones, knives and swords, and details of
PFI frontal organizations such as NCHRO, All India Imam
Council (AIIC), National Women Front (NWF), Rehab, Access
India, SDTU and Campus Front of India (CFI). Pursuant to
Ministry of Home Affairs order F.No.11011/73/2022/NIA dated
25.08.2022, case was re-registered by NIA Hyderabad on
26.08.2022 as RC-03/2022/NIA/HYD under Sections 120B,
121A, 153A, 141 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 13(1)(b), 18A and
18B UA(P) Act, 1967. During investigation, Shaik Feroz (A-7),
Mohd Osman (A-16), Syed Yahiya Sameer (A-17) and Mohd.
Irfan (A-29) were arrested on 18.09.2022 and petitioner (A-32),
Abdul Waheed Ali @ Shaik Vahaid Ali (A-33), Shaik Zafarullah
Khan (A-34), Shaik Riyaz (A-35) and Abdul Waris (A-36) were
arrested on 22.09.2022.
2.4. It is stated, on 29.12.2022, charge sheet was filed
against Accused 1, Accused 2 to 4 (absconding), Accused 5, 7,
16, 17, 24, 28 and 29 and the Court took cognizance as
Spl.S.C.No.01/2023. On 16.03.2023, supplementary charge
sheet was filed against petitioner (A-32), A-33 to 36 under
Sections 120B, 153A IPC and Sections 13(1)(b), 18, 18A and
9
18B UA(P) Act, and the Court took cognizance as
Spl.S.C.No.02/2023. Copies of charge sheet and documents
except Section 164 Cr.P.C statements were supplied to
petitioner and recorded in Court proceedings dated 26.04.2023.
vide order dated 21.09.2023 Spl.S.C.No.02/2023 was clubbed
with Spl.S.C.No.01/2023 for trial. During further investigation,
Nossam Mohamad Yunus (A-31) was arrested on 13.06.2023
and supplementary charge sheet was filed on 07.12.2023 vide
Sr.No.2582 dated 07.12.2023.
2.5. All the witness statements under Sections 161 and
164 Cr.P.C were recorded voluntarily, without coercion, and in
compliance with law, and mere prior association of witnesses
with an organization does not disqualify them from giving
statements, as Section 161 permits examination of any person
acquainted with facts and Section 164 permits recording before
Magistrate. According to this respondent, reliance on Section
306 Cr.P.C by petitioner is misplaced as the said provision
applies only where a person is treated as an accomplice and
seeks pardon, whereas in the present case witnesses are
neither accused nor accomplices and have not sought pardon.
2.6. Petitioner states that investigation revealed
petitioner was an active cadre of PFI involved in radicalizing
10
members, delivering lectures on jihad and motivating violent
activities by instructing about coded “Book-1, Book-2, Book-3”
referring to use of knife, rod and sickle for targeting and
eliminating leaders of RSS and other organizations, and such
role is corroborated by witness statements relating to training
at Heaven Garden Function Hall, Kurnool, and details are
recorded in Para 17.12 of charge sheet dated 16.03.2023.
Though Article 21 provides protection against illegal procedure,
the facts of the case do not attract such protection as the
investigation has been conducted lawfully.
2.7. It is further stated, though witnesses were earlier
members of PFI, they are not accomplices but victims who,
after attending Beginners Course at Heaven Garden Function
Hall, Kurnool, Mubarak Function Hall, Nandyal and PFI Office
Chandrayangutta, realized the unlawful agenda and distanced
themselves, and voluntarily gave statements after assurance of
protection, and their identities were protected under Section 17
of NIA Act, 2008 read with Section 44 of UA(P) Act, 1967,
therefore Section 306 Cr.P.C. is not applicable.
2.8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Ram Babu Misra 3 and Waheed-Ur-Rehman
3
(1980) 2 SCC 343
11Parra v. Union Territory of J&K held that allegations of
coercion must be supported by clear evidence and mere
assertions are insufficient. It is contended, reliance on the
judgment in Laxmipat Choraria‘s case is misplaced, and even
in that case, accomplice evidence was held admissible and
prosecution is not bound to prosecute such witness if their
evidence is necessary, and Section 306 Cr.P.C does not bar
recording of such statements.
3. Heard Sri Shaik Muhammed Abed, learned counsel
for petitioner and Sri Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned Standing
Counsel for respondent – NIA. Learned counsel for petitioner by
the memo dated 26.08.2025, places reliance on Laxmipat
Choraria (supra), Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited (supra),
Central Bureau of Investigation rep. by Addl. SP. CBI, ACB,
Kolkata v. Mrinmoy Chandra, Ex. Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Kolkata4
and also the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 27309 of
2023 and Writ Appeal No. 1005 of 2024.
4. From a perusal of the material on record, it is to be
seen, the primary relief sought by petitioner is to quash
statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C at the
pre-trial stage by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
4
2024 SCC On Line Cal 944
12the Constitution. Petitioner’s contention rests on the premise
that certain witnesses are accomplices, therefore, their
statements ought to have been recorded only under Section 306
Cr.P.C. However, such contention necessarily involves
determination of factual issues as to whether such witnesses
are accomplices, participants or victims, and whether their
statements were voluntary or coerced, which are matters
requiring appreciation of evidence.
5. It is well-settled that statements recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C form part of the investigation and
their evidentiary value, admissibility and reliability are to be
tested during trial. Accused is provided with adequate
safeguards under the criminal justice system, including the
right to cross-examine witnesses and to challenge the credibility
and voluntariness of such statements before the trial Court. At
this stage, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into
disputed questions of fact or undertake a mini-trial to assess
the nature of such statements.
6. Further, there is substance in the contention of
respondent – NIA that petitioner, being an accused, cannot seek
quashing of statements of third party witnesses in writ
jurisdiction, particularly when no complaint has been made by
the witnesses themselves alleging coercion or illegality. The
13allegations of coercion and threat made by petitioner are not
supported by any material on record and are in the nature of
bald assertions. It is also to be noted, applicability of Section
306 Cr.P.C. depends upon the status of a person as an
accomplice and the decision to tender pardon is a matter within
the domain of the competent court and prosecution, and the
mere allegation that certain witnesses are affiliated to an
organization does not ipso facto render them accomplices so as
to invalidate statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164
Cr.P.C. Respondent has taken a categorical stand that such
witnesses are not accomplices but victims who voluntarily came
forward, and such disputed characterization cannot be
adjudicated in writ proceedings.
7. The reliance placed on the judgment in Laxmipat
Choraria‘s case does not advance the case of petitioner
inasmuch as the said judgment itself recognizes admissibility of
evidence even of a person involved, subject to caution, and does
not lay down an absolute bar on recording statements outside
Section 306 Cr.P.C. Similarly, the judgment in Hyder
Consulting (UK) Pvt Ltd. is misconceived as the doctrine of per
incuriam cannot be invoked to disregard earlier judgments in
collateral proceedings in the manner sought by petitioner. It is
also pertinent that earlier Writ Petition No. 27309 of 2023 and
14
Writ Appeal No.1005 of 2024 arising out of the same case have
been dismissed, and though petitioner seeks to distinguish the
same by alleging per incuriam, this Court finds no justification
to entertain identical challenge on similar grounds, particularly
at the pre-trial stage.
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the relief sought by petitioner is not maintainable
in writ jurisdiction as it involves disputed questions of fact, and
pertains to matters which are required to be adjudicated during
trial in Spl.S.C.No.01 of 2023 on the file of the IV Addl.
Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum Special Court for NIA Cases
at Nampally, Hyderabad, and no case is made out for
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No
costs.
10. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
——– —————————–
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
20th April 2026
ksld
15
