CRLP/17232/2025 of Kallem Bhasker Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 31 December 2025

IN THE HrcH COURTfORDTHE STATE OF TELANGANA

WEDNESDAY'Lf

I1,UAI'^iIE:{TKI.9EDECEMBER

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

Between:

1Afl i,tcl-1"1*!i:1"'J?[:[*8,[#fl il,fltr-1,J:H],","&,ffi nu,, 2 Hflfly#txf,,,:[ffil,il?

^ffi'J:fr:tj #"mrB?s;;1*.nt R/o H N o 4-1

a,

3. Vadthyavath Amru, S/o.Ushva o".^ ,r"l^. :

'--

. :ili' it n o, Apirr ;.;;ff ilil:^a%?l f,fr Jffi u?f;?, ri;; ffi:#i?,',I.N

o 1 - 1 8,

*

fi T,: yi$:rsffi^ r.,j::,'#, #1.,,*l;*#""A;rft#; ffi+_,f#_

District.

AND

...PETITIONERS/ICCUSED No.7 to 10

The state of rerangana, Throuq! .s.f-f.o, Kandukurp.s, Rachakonda, Rep. by its pubtic p rosecu ro, Fr is h"c oii iii u vo;;;6 ;;, Hii"r"o"o.

... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Petition under section 4g2 of ?.N.g.s., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminai petition, the Hilh court may be pleased to en{arge the PetitLners/Accused r.ro.z to 10 0n bait in tne event of their arrest in connection with cr.N o.212 or iozi, dt.og. 11.zozs pending on the file of Kandukur police Station, Racnatonda.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing itru "rs;*"rrr'"i sri c Hari Preeth, Advocate for the Petitioners and of sri D Arun Kumar, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the state of relangana on behalf of the sole Respondent.

The Court made the following: ORDER

*-="-*--T

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR llE STATE OF TELANGAI{A

AT TIYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

DATE: }L.L2'2O25

Between:

KallemBlraskerReddyandthreeothers

AND

Petitioners

The Stat': of Telangana'

Through S.H.O', dandukur P'S'' Rachakonda'

Rep., bY its Public Prosecutor'

High Co'urt for the State of Telangana' Hyderabad ResPondent'

o

D

R

T.neCriminalPetitionisfitedunderSection4S2ofBNSS

prayingthisCourttograntpre-arrestbailtothepetitioners whoarrayedasaccusedNos.TtoloinCrimeNo.2T2ot2o2S

before the Kandukuru Potice Station' Rachakonda Commissionerate, registered for the oflfences pUniShable under iJections 103(1) read wirh 315) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

2'

The case ,of the prosecution is that on og.rl .2o2s, Police received a written complaint frorn one Arun Kumar, wherein he stated that he, arong with the deceased, went shopping. Thereafter, the deceased informed that he had some work and would come rater. Accordingly, the complainant and others returned to Mirchi Factory at Gudur Gate. on 08.11.202s, the ;omplainant came to know that the deceased had not reported for work. He, along with the porice, searched for the deceased and they found him near sBI Bank.

Immediately, he was shifted to osmania Hospital, where he was admitted, examined, and decrared dead. They did not express any adoptive or other persons and stated that he might have died due to ilr health, as he was suffering from ill_

health' Basing on the same, a case was registered under section L94 of BNSS. Thereafter, during the investigation, it was revealed that accused Nos.l to 10 beat the deceased, causing injuries from which he died. The postmortem report also shows that the cause of death was blunt injury to the abdomen.

)

I

3.

Hea:rd Sri C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel for petitionerr;, and sri D. Aryn Kumar, learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State.

4.

Lea:i'ned counsel for the petitioner contended that though there are no specific allegations against petitioners/accused Nos.7 to 10, the petitioners are falsely implicaterl in this case solely based on the confession statements of accused Nos.l to 5. The offence does not fall under section 103(1) of BNS and, therefore, custodial interrogalion is not required in the present case. As such, he requestecl the'court to grant bail to the petitioners/accused.

Nos.7 to 10.

on the otrrer hand, the learned Additional public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, contending that the alleged offence falls urrder section l03 of BNS, for which custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required for further investigation. Therefore, they are not entitled to anticipatory bail. Herrce, he prayed that the court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6.

Considering the submissions made by the parties and material available on record, it appears that that the allegation against the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.7 to 10, is that they also abused the deceased on the date of the incident. It is noteworthy that the alteged offence is serious in nature and the investigation is at the final stage. Consictering the severity of the allegation, the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

7.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Sd,- MOnnlNA

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

/TRUE COPY"

SECTION OFFICER

To

1. Tk|e ll class Executive Magistrate cum Tahsildar' Kandukur Mandal' Ranga

z. ?#g,38lliftlr* onicer, Kandukur porice station, Rachakonda

3. Two ccs to the pubtic proselij[l, iiigh ;,*tt iliG ttate of relangana' at 4t 3pfS8#t?l}**i Preeth' Advocate toPucl , 5. Two CD CoPies ilL

hnvsn

I

J

HIGH COUR

DATED: 31112/,2025