CRLP/14568/2026 of Nimmala Venkanna, Vs The State of Telangana on 1 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

1. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail who are arrayed as A4, A1 to A3, A5, A8 and A7 in connection with Crime No.117 of 2026 of P.S. Haliya. The offences alleged against the petitioners - A4, A1 to A3, A5, A8 and A7 are punishable under Sections 103, 61(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 3(1)(f), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “SC/ST (POA) Act”)

2. Heard Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for petitioner-A4, Sri Yellendula Sai Teja, learned counsel for petitioners-A1 to A3, A5 and A8, Sri V.Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioner-A7 and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State and Ms.Darshanam Swarnalatha, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made in the FIR and remand report against the petitioners - A4, A1 to A3, A5, A8 and A7 are false and they does not constitute any offence under law much less the offences mentioned in the FIR and remand case diary. Sections which are mentioned in the FIR and remand case diary for the offence under Sections 103 and 61 of BNS are not made out against the petitioners-A4, A1 to A3, A5, A8 and A7. Earlier bail applications filed before the District Court and before this Court came to be dismissed on different dates. Counsel for A5 and A8 submits that the provisions of Special Act are not at all attracted to the above said accused, entire investigation is completed and charge sheet came to be filed before the concerned Court and prayed to enlarge them on bail.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that bail petition against A5 and A8 is not applicable in view of the fact that they have to file an Appeal under Section 14-A of SC/ST (POA) Act. Charge sheet came to be filed and is numbered as SPl. SC.No.133 of 2026.

5. Respondent No.2 has filed counter and contended that the petitioners-A4, A1 to A3, A5, A8 and A7 cannot take advantage of any alleged delay in the commencement of trial when the prosecution has already taken affirmative steps for expeditious disposal of the case. Charge sheet has already been filed and numbered as Spl. SC.No.133 of 2026 and the case is posted for appearance of the accused on 28.09.2026. Learned Special Public Prosecutor before the trial Court has filed an application under Section 14(3) r/w Section 15A of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Rule 7 of the SC/ST (POA) Rules, 1995 that he is ready to proceed with the trial without any delay. Serious allegations are levelled against the petitioners-A4, A1 to A3, A5, A8 and A7, hence they are not entitled for grant of bail.

6. M.Vinod has lodged a complaint before P.S. Haliya on 17.05.2026 stating that 1) N.Shashikala (2) G.Navanitha (3) A.Renuka and their family members were quarelling with his sister-Sumalatha and threatened that they would harvest the palm oil fruits at any cost and if obstructed they would kill his sister and her daughter and executed accordingly. Basing on the said complaint, FIR came to be registered under Sections 103 and 61(2) of BNS against A1-N.Shashikala, A2- G.Navanitha, A3-A.Renuka, A4-N.Venkanna, A5-G.Ramesh, A6-R.Narasimha and A7-R.Mahesh. 7.1 A1-N.Shashikala was arrested on 20.05.2026 and was produced before the concerned Court for judicial remand on 21.05.2026, since then she is in custody. A2-G.Navanitha, A3- Angadi Renuka, A5-G.Ramesh, A7-R.Mahesh and A8- G.Swamy were arrested on 19.05.2026 and were produced before the concerned Magistrate for remand on 21.05.2026, since then they are in judicial custody. Remand case diary of A2, A3, A5, A7 and A8 goes to show that A4-N.Venkanna and A6-R.Narasimha are absconding. 7.2 A4-N.Venkanna was arrested on 02.06.2026 and was produced before the concerned Magistrate for remand, since then he is in judicial custody.

8. A6-R.Narasimha and A7-R.Mahesh have filed Crl.P.Nos.13060 and 13147 of 2026 for grant of regular bail before this Court. Respondent No.2 has opposed the said application and this Court vide order dated 01.09.2026 has dismissed both the applications holding that serious allegations are levelled against A6 and A7.

9. It is to be noted here that filing of charge sheet by the police before the concerned Court on 31.08.2026 was not brought to the notice of this Court while passing common order on 01.09.2026 of A6-R.Narasimha and A7-R.Mahesh.

10. Police has filed charge sheet against A1 to A8 on 31.08.2026. In the charge sheet, they have shown A9-R.Venkatamma and A10-R.Sailu as absconding.

11. Charge sheet filed by the police goes to show that A1 to A4, A6, A7, A9 and A10 have committed an offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) r/w Section 3(5) of BNS. Since investigation is completed, charge sheet came to be filed before the concerned Court which is numbered as Spl. SC.No.133 of 2026, the question of influencing the witnesses by A1 to A4 and A7 does not arise, hence they are entitled for grant of bail.

12. Learned counsel for A5 and A8 submits that Sections 3(1)(f), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act is not applicable to the case on hand and relied on the decision in the case of Shajan Skaria Vs. State of Kerala and Another1. 13.1 In Shajan Skaria1 Supreme Court observed in Para No.52 which reads as under: “If on a prima facie reading of the materials referred to in the complaint and the complaint itself, the ingredients necessary for constituting the offence are not made out, then the bar of Section 18 would not be applicable and it would be open to the Courts to consider the plea for the grant pre-arrest on its own merits”.

13.2 In the above said judgment, the question fell for consideration before the Supreme Court is for grant of anticipatory bail with regard to the offences under Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

14. It is appropriate to refer Section 14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act which reads as under:

1) ----

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (3) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail.

1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249

15.1 A5 and A8 along with A1 to A3 have filed Crl.MP.No.415 of 2026 in Crime No.117 of 2026 for grant of regular bail before the Special Court which came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2026 holding that investigation is pending. 15.2 A5 and A8 along with A1 to A3 have filed Crl.MP.No.491 of 2026 in Crime No.117 of 2026 for grant of regular bail which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.08.2026 holding that there is a threat to the life of the deceased family members and there is a possibility of escaping from the jurisdiction of the Court.

16. On reading of Section 14A of SC/ST (POA) Act, Appeal has to be filed against the rejection of the bail order. It is mentioned in the remand case diary that ingredients necessary for constituting an offence under Section 3(1)(f) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act is made out. Regular bail petition filed by A5 and A8 is not maintainable in view of Section 14A of SC/ST (POA) Act.

17. The decision cited by the learned counsel for A5 and A8 in Shajan Skaria1 is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has dealt with

Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act but not in a regular bail petition.

18. This Court is conscious of the fact that there are two deaths in the case. The apprehension of the respondent No.2- complainant counsel is that if A1 to A4 and A7 are enlarged on bail that may adversely affect the confidence and security of the complainant’s family and material witnesses which may prejudice the fair trial. Since charge sheet is already filed A1 to A4 and A7 are entitled for grant of bail on conditions.

19.1. Accordingly, petitioners-A1 to A4 and A7 are granted bail, subject to the following strict conditions : i. The petitioners- A1 to A4 and A7 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nidmanoor, Nalgonda District.

ii. The petitioners-A1 to A4 and A7 shall appear before the concerned SHO in between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., on every Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday and mark their presence till conclusion of Spl.SC.No.133 of 2026.

iii. The petitioners- A1 to A4 and A7 shall not involve in any other crimes.

iv. The petitioners- A1 to A4 and A7 shall not directly or indirectly influence, threaten, or induce any of the prosecution witnesses.

v. The petitioners-A1 to A4 and A7 shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).

vi. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

19.2. Petition against A5 and A8 is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________________________

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J 1st October, 2026 PLV

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.14568, 14571 and 15032 of 2026

(CNR No.HBHC010612402026 (Crl.P.No.14568 of 2026) (CNR No.HBHC010612432026 (Crl.P.No.14571 of 2026) (CNR No.HBHC010632272026 (Crl.P.No.15032 of 2026)

DATE: 01.10.2026

PLV