CRLP/10790/2026 of Katyada Bapurao Vs The State of Telangana on 21 July 2026

: ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner praying this Court to enlarge him on bail who is accused in Crime No.109 of 2026 of Gandhari Police Station, Kamareddy Distrct. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 308 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 04.06.2026 at about 6:00 p.m., the de facto complainant, who is the Vice-

Chairman of the Gandhari Market Committee, lodged a complaint stating that he owns land admeasuring 206 square yards in Survey No.906. While he was levelling the land and constructing shutters in February, 2025, one Bapurao approached him, introduced himself as a reporter of a magazine titled Prashna Ayudham, and falsely alleged that the complainant had encroached upon forest land. Despite the complainant producing documents establishing his title, Bapurao allegedly lodged a false complaint with the Forest Department, pursuant to which officials conducted an enquiry. Thereafter, Bapurao allegedly demanded Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant, threatening that, if the amount was not paid, he would continue to file false complaints and harass him. It is also alleged that he made repeated threatening phone calls demanding money. The complainant further alleged that Bapurao, under the guise of being a journalist, had been extorting money from several persons by threatening to file complaints and RTI applications. As the complainant learnt that Bapurao had been arrested in another case, he gathered the courage to lodge the present complaint, seeking legal action against him. Based on the said complaint, the present Crime is registered against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri K.Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the alleged incident pertains to February, 2025, whereas the complaint was lodged on 04.06.2026, after an unexplained delay of nearly 16 months, which creates serious doubt about the prosecution case. It is further contended that, on the date of registration of the present crime, the petitioner was already in judicial custody in another case, and after securing bail therein, he was re-arrested in the present case with mala fide intention. The learned counsel submits that the investigation has been completed, the material evidence has already been collected, no recovery has been made from the petitioner, and his further custodial detention is not necessary. He further contended that petitioner is a journalist by profession and mere reference to other pending cases cannot be a ground to deny bail. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed bail contending that petitioner is a habitual offender and a rowdy sheet is also opened against him. Six crimes are pending against the petitioner. The petitioner used to threaten the people and extort money from them under the guise of journalist. He further submitted that if petitioner is released on bail at this stage, he may threaten the witnesses and indulge in similar offences. Hence, prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court notices that the petitioner was initially remanded to judicial custody on 27.05.2026 in Crime No.225 of 2026 and was subsequently secured in the present case through a P.T. warrant, which was regularized on 01.07.2026. Considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, the nature of allegations and the stage of investigation, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner. However, the apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner may influence witnesses or indulge in similar offences can be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, petitioner is granted bail subject to the following conditions :

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Yellareddy.

ii. The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer/Investigating Officer concerned on every Monday and Thursday between 11.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. for a period of eight weeks or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

iii. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact, threaten, induce, influence, or intimidate the de facto complainant, witnesses, or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case. iv. The petitioner shall not involve himself in any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of case.

v. The petitioner shall cooperate with the

investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

vi. The petitioner shall not leave the State without prior permission of the concerned Court.

vii. The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile number to the

Investigating Officer and shall not change the same without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer.

viii. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, it is open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

ix. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 483(2) of the BNSS.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date : 21.07.2026 Rds

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10790 OF 2026

DATE : 21.07.2026

Rds