Telangana High Court
CRLP/17782/2025 of Lakavath Krishna Vs The State of Telangana, on 31 December 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17782 of 2025 DATE: 31.12.2025 Between: Lakavath Krishna …. Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, Through SHO,
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.17782 of 2025
DATE: 31.12.2025
Between:
Lakavath Krishna
…. Petitioner/Accused
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad,
Through SHO, Bayyaram,
Mahabubabad District.
…. Respondent/Complainant
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner/accuseed seeking enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No.206 of 2025 of Bayyaram Police Station, Mahabubabad District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 64(2)(m), 69 of the BNS and Section 5 r/w 6 of the POCSO Act-2012.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 21.11.2025, the de- facto complainant lodged a report with the police stating that the petitioner herein is a relative of her aunt and both used to visit her aunt’s house and after a few days, with this acquaintance, he began saying that he loved her and started following her. Even though she refused, he kept harassing her and repeatedly pressuring her to love him, saying that he would marry her and he troubled her in many ways. Believing his words, she accepted his love. Later, he came to her house and physically exploited her and on several occasions they met physically under the promise of marriage and when she insisted for the marriage, he said that his mother is not accepting for the marriage. Hence, she requested for necessary action. Based on the said complaint, the police registered a case for the above said offences. In the year 2020, the victim was minor, whereas on the date of filing of the complaint, she is aged about 20 years.
3. Heard Sri R. Prasanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he is in jail since 24.11.2025 and he is falsely implicated in this case and there is no such allegation that he has committed rape on her and the material part of the investigation was already completed, as such, further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and he is ready to cooperate with the investigating authority. Therefore, he prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and further, he informed that there are no other cases pending against the petitioner and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that, on the date of lodging the complaint by the de- facto complainant, she was aged about 20 years and she was minor prior to the lodging of the complaint, which itself does not require any notice to the victim, which is mandatory under the
POCSO Act and he is in jail since 24.11.2025. As recorded in the remand case diary, the prosecution witnesses LWs.1 to 12 have already been examined and the statement under Section 183 of the BNS is also recorded. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the duration of incarceration, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner, 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 learned Principal and JR and Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Mahabubabad. ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) week 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 petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 31.12.2025 TU
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.17782 OF 2025 DATE : 31.12.2025
TU