Telangana High Court

CRLP/11117/2026 of Sachin Kumar Vs The State of Telangana on 23 July 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11117 of 2026 DATE: 23.07.2026 Between: Sachin Kumar …. Petitioner-Accused AND The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O., P.S. Medchal, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11117 of 2026

DATE: 23.07.2026

Between:

Sachin Kumar

…. Petitioner-Accused

AND

The State of Telangana,

Through S.H.O., P.S. Medchal,

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court at Hyderabad and another

…. Respondents-Complainant.

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

: O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail, who is arrayed as accused in Crime No.500 of of Medchal Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1), 127(4) and 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Section 5(l) read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.05.2026, the de-facto complainant, who is mother of the victim, lodged a report before the Police stating that her second daughter, aged about 13 years, left the house on 19.05.2026 at about 08:00 AM, stating that she was going to a nearby shop, but she did not return home thereafter. They searched for her among their relatives and known persons but could not find any information regarding her whereabouts. They suspect one person by name Sandeep Kumar. Despite making several calls to him, he did not respond. Based on the said complaint, the police initially registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 137(2) of BNS. During the course of the investigation, after tracing the victim and recording her statement, the section of law was altered to the offences mentioned above.

3. Heard Sri P. Manoj, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations levelled against him and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the Investigating Officer has not collected any documents to establish that the victim was a minor as on the date of the alleged incident. He further submitted that even in the entire remand report, there is no specific mention regarding the age of the victim, though it is stated that she had already completed her Intermediate first year. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 05.06.2026 and is a resident of Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh and that a substantial part of the investigation has already been completed and therefore, there is no possibility of the petitioner tampering with the evidence. Hence, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature and that the investigation is still in progress and prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition. However, he informed the Court that the statements under Section 183 of BNSS are already recorded.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 05.06.2026. As per the remand case diary, the prosecution witnesses, namely LWs.1 to 18, have already been examined and the statements under Section 183 of BNSS were also recorded. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the stage of investigation and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused on bail, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kushaiguda.

ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.

iii. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 23.07.2026 SS

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11117 of 2026

Date: 23.07.2026 SS

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead