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 11 Parra 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 12 the 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 13 allegations 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