Telangana High Court

CRLP/10435/2026 of Ravula Vishal Vs The State of Telangana on 17 July 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10435 of 2026 DATE: 17.07.2026 BETWEEN: Ravula Vishal. …..petitioner/accused No.2 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10435 of 2026

DATE: 17.07.2026

BETWEEN:

Ravula Vishal.

…..petitioner/accused No.2

And

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by Public Prosecutor,

High Court for the State of Telangana,

at Hyderabad.

…..Respondent

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…

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.329 of 2026 before the Osmania University Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 121(1), 221, 281 r/w 3(5) of BNS, 3(2)(e) of Prevention of damage of Public Property Act, 184 and 185 of MV Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.07.2026 at about 04:25 hours, the complainant/Head Constable along with other police personnel, while on patrolling duty near EFLU, noticed Accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly consuming alcohol near a car. On questioning, they allegedly argued with the police. Accused No.1 is stated to have damaged a Government-issued tab and assaulted the complainant, while the other accused joined him. It is further alleged that the present petitioner/Accused No.2 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and fled from the spot. Based on the said allegations, the above crime was registered and the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

3. Heard Sri D.Sudharshan, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that no specific overt act is attributed to the petitioner except the allegation that he drove the vehicle from the scene and no injury was caused to any police personnel by such act. He further submits that the main allegations of assault and damage to Government property are attributed to Accused No.1. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 05.07.2026, the vehicle involved in the offence has already been seized, and his further detention is not required for investigation. He further submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident, has no criminal antecedents, and is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1–State opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He submits that the petitioner, along with other accused, obstructed police officials in discharge of their duties and fled from the spot by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He further contends that the investigation is still pending and if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of his influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made, and on perusing the material placed on record, it is noted that the petitioner is in jail from 05.07.2026. The specific overt acts of assault and damage to Government property are attributed to Accused No.1, whereas the allegation against the petitioner is mainly that he drove the vehicle from the scene. Considering the period of incarceration and the nature of allegations, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the compliance of 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 IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Hyderabad.

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, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 17.07.2026 PT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10435 of 2026

Date: 17.07.2026 PT

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