Smt.M.Bhavani

Page No. 1 of 8S.C.No.210/2019 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

IN THE COURT OF SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT –CUM- VII ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT M. BHAVANI

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989,

CUM VII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

TUESDAY, ON THIS 5 th DAY OF MAY, 2026

SC/ST. SC. No.210 OF 2019

Cr.No., PS. and the file ofCr.No.667/2019 of PS Uppal, on the file of III the Court.Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, at L.B.Nagar. Police Station PS Uppal.

Description of the AccusedA1: Pancha Sachin, S/o.P.Sathya Hari, Age: 22 years, Occ: Student, R/o.h.No.3-18-94/1, Pragathi Nagar, Ramanthapur, Uppal Mandal.

A2: K.Mahesh Reddy, S/o.K.Chenna Reddy, Age: 27 years, Occ: Contract Municipal Employee, R/o.H.No.3-4-63/8/E/1, Arvind Nagar, Ramanthapur, Uppal.

A3: Ambati Sampath, S/o.Krishna, Age” 28 yeas, Occ: Transport business, Caste: Betha, R/o.H.No.3-16-5, Nehru Nagar, Near Pochamma Temple, Ramanthapur, Uppal.

A4: Bushaboina Srinivas @ Sreenu @ Machha, S/o. Late B.V.Shankar, Age: 26 years, Caste: BC-Bestha, Occ: Pvt.Employee, R/o.h.No.3-3-26/B,AnandNagar, Ramanthapur, Uppal.

A5: Nakka Sai Nikhil, S/o.Shankar, Age: 22 years, Caste: SC (Madiga), Occ: Event Organizer, R/o.h.No.3-8-8, Nehru Nagar,

Page No. 2 of 8S.C.No.210/2019 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

Ramanthapur, Uppal.

Charges Under Section 341, 324 R/w 34 IPC and Section 3 (2) (va) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against Accused No.2, 3 & 4. Under Section 341, 324 R/w 34 IPC against Accused No.1 & 5. Plea of the accused Not guilty Finding of the Judge In the result, the Accused No.2, 3 & 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable

Under Section 341, 324 R/w 34 IPC and

Section 3 (2) (va) of The Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and Accused No.1 & 5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 341, 324 R/w 34 IPC and are acquitted under

Section 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after lapse of 6 months. Prosecution conducted bySri G.Bhadradri, Special Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri E.Sreenivas Reddy, Advocate for all the accused.

J U D G M E N T

The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Malkajgiri

Division, Rachakonda, laid the case against the accused No.2, 3 & 4 for the offence punishable Under Section 341, 324 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 (2) (va) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (POA) Amendment Act,

Page No. 3 of 8S.C.No.210/2019 SC/ST Court, R.R.District 2015 and for the offence Under Section 341, 324 r/w 34 IPC against

Accused No.1 & 5.

2. The case of prosecution is:

A complaint is lodged by the injured stating that he along with his younger brother M.Sainath after closing their Ice Cream shop,

Ramanthapur, were proceeding to their house on a motor cycle. On the night of 26/27-07-2019 at 0030 hours enroute at Poonam Function Hall,

Nehru Nagar, Old Ramanthapur, all the accused stopped their motor cycle and questioned why they cannot proceed from the adjacent lane and abused in filthy language by touching caste as “Meeru Madiga Vallu.” One of the accused namely Sachin (A1) beat the complainant with Knuckle duster and assaulted him on face, resulting in severe injuries. His younger brother was also attacked and they were beaten.

On such report, the Inspector of Police, Uppal registered the case and issued FIR. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda, appointed Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malkajgiri Division, as an

Investigation Officer vide proceedings in C.No.167/C-1/RK/2019, dated 27-07-2019 and he took up investigation of the matter. He proceeded to the crime scene and recorded the statements of both the injured. They proceeded to the crime scene and secured mediators. In their presence

Page No. 4 of 8S.C.No.210/2019 SC/ST Court, R.R.District drafted CDF with rough sketch. Eye witnesses were also examined.

Notices were issued to all the accused under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and were complied. The medical officer who treated the complainant issued

Wound certificate, stating that the injuries are ‘simple in nature’. After collecting the caste particulars from the Tahsildhars concerned and on completion of investigation laid this case.

3.The case was taken cognizance against the accused No.2, 3 & 4 for the offence punishable Under Section 341, 324 R/w 34 IPC and

Section 3 (2) (va) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (POA)

Amendment Act, 2015 and for the offence Under Section 341, 324 R/w 34

IPC against Accused No.1 & 5. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207

Cr.P.C. The accused were examined under Section 228 (2) Cr.P.C. Charges were framed and read over to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, Prosecution got examined 4 witnesses and exhibited 4 documents. After closure of the prosecution evidence, this court found that there is no incriminating evidence appearing against the accused in the prosecution case and so examination of the

Page No. 5 of 8S.C.No.210/2019 SC/ST Court, R.R.District accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

5.Heard the matter.

6.Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of all the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charges levelled against them ?

POINT :-

7.The Special Public Prosecutor reported to dispose the matter on merits.

8.The learned counsel for accused reported that none of the witnesses identified the accused to be the assailants who attacked the defacto complainant. The overt acts committed by each of the accused are not deposed by the prosecution witnesses. The elements of wrongful restraint is not proved and no medical certificate is exhibited by the prosecution to prove that the complainant sustained injuries when 1st accused beat him and so prayed the court to acquit the accused.

9.PW.1 (M.Vinod Kumar) who set the criminal law into motion by lodging complaint testified that in the year 2019 when they were proceeding from their Ice-Cream Parlor during midnight 5 members obstructed them and a petty dispute arose. He stated that he was beaten on the forehead and on the next day morning he lodged report. Though he narrated that he

Page No. 6 of 8S.C.No.210/2019 SC/ST Court, R.R.District was beaten and gave particulars of the incident and also names of offenders, but he could not identify the accused and stated that as it was dark he cannot identify the said persons. A perusal of the report shows that he gave the particulars and names of the accused to be the persons who attacked him and caused injuries. However in his testimony he did not identify them or state the overt acts committed by the each of the accused.

10.PW.2 (M.Sainath) who accompanied the complainant testified that he do not know the facts of the case and was not examined by the police. PW.3 (K.Kalyan) & PW.4 (M.Prashanth) the two other witnesses who are circumstantial witnesses too stated that they do not know the facts of the case and they were not examined by the police.

11.Except the above evidence there is no evidence let in by the prosecution to show that all the accused wrongfully restrained the complainant and his brother, beat them resulting in injuries. The wound certificate is not filed. There is no positive evidence let in by the prosecution to show that all the accused with an intention that complainant is SC Committed the offence of wrongful restraint and caused hurt to the complainant. Due to lack of identity and proper evidence, the court holds that the accused are entitled for acquittal.

Page No. 7 of 8S.C.No.210/2019 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

12. In the result, the Accused No.2, 3 & 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 341, 324 R/w 34 IPC and Section 3 (2) (va) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (POA) Amendment

Act, 2015 and Accused No.1 & 5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 341, 324 R/w 34 IPC and are acquitted under

Section 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after lapse of 6 months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer G-I, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court on this the 5 th day of May, 2026.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

For Trial of offences under SC/ST (POA)Act-Cum-VII Addl. Dist. Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

PROSECUTION: ACCUSED:

PW.1 : M.Vinod Kumar Nil. PW.2 : M.Sainath PW.3 : K.Kalyan PW.4 : M.Prashanth

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Report. Ex.P2: Relevant portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2. Ex.P3: Relevant portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Ex.P4: Relevant portion of Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4.

Page No. 8 of 8S.C.No.210/2019 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

ACCUSED:

Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

For Trial of offences under SC/ST (POA)Act-Cum-VII Addl. Dist. Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

1 of 6

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT :: AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: Sri P. Pradeep Naik, XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, I/C. IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District At L.B.Nagar.

Tuesday, Dated this the 03rd day of June, 2025

Crl.MP.No.1056 of 2025

IN

Crime No.81 OF 2025

Between:

Putta Guru Murthy, S/o.Late Krishna Murthy, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Ex-Service man, Plot # 3, H# 10-149/2/D, New Venkateshwara Colony, Jillelaguda, Balapur Mandal, R.R.District, N/o.Jellivari Pullala Cheruvu (v) (JP Cheruvu), Racharla (m), Prakasham District, A.P. State.

...Petitioner/ Accused

AND

The State of Telangana, through PS Meerpet. …Respondent/Complainant.

This Petition is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. Prashanth Gadipe, Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused and Sri T.Venkateshwara Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusal of the material papers, on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

2 of 6

1.This is the fourth bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, praying the court to enlarge him on bail.

2.The contents of the petition are:

The Mother of the deceased lodged complaint on 18-01-2025 stating that her daughter went missing from 16-01-2025 without intimation, due to quarrel with her husband. They searched in the surrounding areas and giving descriptive particulars lodged complaint. On such complaint the case was registered under the head Woman Missing and lookout notice is issued to trace the woman.

Later the accused informed his maternal uncle about the commission of the crime and he inturn informed the same to the police and thus he was arrested.

The case of prosecution is that the accused brutally murdered his wife as she and her family members defamed him in a panchayath before the elders at their native village. It is also their case that the children were left at his sister’s house and on the day of incident he killed her cut her; limbs and boiled them in water, incinerated them on a gas stove, reduced remains into powder and later dissolved the remains in the Meerpet Pedda Cheruvu on the 3 of 6 evening of 16-01-2025.

The learned counsel for the petitioner / accused reported before the court that the grounds of bail are as under :-

(i)Absence of strong direct evidence against the accused.

(ii)The confession is an extra judicial confession which the accused made to his maternal uncle and it is not corroborated by independent proof.

(iii) There are no direct eye witnesses to the murder and there is

CCTV footage showing the accused leaving with a bucket and returning.

The said evidence is circumstantial.

(iv) The remains that were recovered can be interpreted as a lack of concrete proof that accused disposed the body as confessed.

(v)The legal precedent with regard to the bail speaks that the nature of offence alone does not necessarily make bail unavailable, but consideration must be given on the evidence placed before the court on record.

(vi) The accused has strong family ties and is an Ex-Service man worked as security guard. It indicates that he has a stable 4 of 6 employment and social connections.

(vii) The children requires his care and attention. They are under the care of his relatives and so his presence is required to take care of them.

(viii) There are no criminal antecedents or previous criminal activities against him. He is an Ex-Soldier and there are standards of discipline and conduct which led to him to a higher level.

(ix) It is only as isolated incident which is an unfortunate one and that it arose because of a domestic dispute.

(x)The presumption of innocence is fundamental to our legal system and denying bail may lead to infringe upon the right of the individual.

(xi) The accused will not influence the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice.

(xii) He shall abide by any of the conditions imposed. Hence prayed the court to allow the application.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor got filed his counter and urged before the court that it is a brutal, gruesome murder which took place during broad day light. The charge sheet is filed and a letter is also addressed 5 of 6 to the Government for establishment of a Special Fast Tract Court for speedy trial and a letter is also addressed for appointment of Special Public

Prosecutor for effective prosecution. Apart from it, it is contended that if the accused is granted bail there is every possibility that he may approach the family members of the deceased and put them under threat of not deposing in favour of prosecution. It is also stated that the children will be much disturbed if he is released on bail as he killed their mother. The possibility of influencing the witnesses and to evade trial cannot be ruled out.

It is further stated that considering the nature of the offence, its gravity and as the accused is an Ex-Soldier he knows ways and means to evade the trial and may flee away from the jurisdiction of the court. The Additional public Prosecutor also reported that accused herein worked as Soldier at

Assam, Dehradun & Tamilnadu etc., wherein using his contacts he may flee away from the jurisdiction of the court stalling the proceedings. Therefore sought for dismissal of the application.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Whether the petitioner/Accused is entitled for grant of bail as sought for ?

Point:- 6 of 6

6.A perusal of the case diary shows that the accused herein due to domestic issues alleged to have killed his wife brutally by strangulating her to death and then chopped the dead body into several pieces and boiled them in a bucket of water using electric heater and then incinerated the boiled parts on gas stove and powdered them and disposed it in the bathroom afterwhich, he placed the unburnt parts such as the bones and covered it with banian and he wore during commission of offence, placed some garbage and also intended to screen the evidence by cleaning the floor and transporting the said garbage bucket on his Pulsar Motorbike and disposed the same in Meerpet lake to escape from legal punishment. However, even if charge sheet is filed, in view of above circumstances, granting bail to him now may lead to tampering of evidence and threatening of his children in order to escape from punishment.

Moreover, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that a letter is also addressed to the Government for establishment of a Special Fast Tract Court for speedy trial and a letter is also addressed for appointment of Special Public

Prosecutor for effective prosecution. In view of the heinous nature of crime, if he is released on bail, he may commit similar offence and may try to screen the evidence, therefore, for the foregoing reasons, this court feels it not proper to allow this application.

7 of 6

7.In the result, petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 03rd day of June, 2025.

I/C. IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Page No. 1 of total 4 pages Orders in Crl. Mp. No. 1145 of 2025 in Crime No.988 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

PRESENT: Sri P. Pradeep Naik, XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, I/C. IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

Wednesday, Dated this the 04th day of June, 2025

Crl.M.P.No. 1145 of 2025

in

Cr.No. 988 of 2025

Between:

1. Chintakayala Nithya @ Shyam, C/o. Mohan, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Begging, R/o. Plot No. 237, Indranagar Colony, Gandamguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, N/o. Budpur Village, Addakula Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Ababala Bhargavi @ Shyam, C/o. Surya Narayana, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Begging, R/o. Plot No. 237, Indranagar Colony, Gandamguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, N/o. Ranigari Thota Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh State.

3. Yerrati Srinidhi Reddy @ Srikanth, C/o. Nagi Reddy, Aged about 26 years, Occ: Begging, R/o. Plot No. 237, Indranagar colony, Gandamguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, RR District. N/o. Uppuguda, Hyderabad.

4. Kavali Gayatri @ Shivaji, C/o. Ramulu, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Begging, R/o. Vaddera Basti, Pattigadda, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

....Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4

AND

The State of Telangana through P.S. Narsingi, Cyberabad.

...Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. Seshagiri Rao Yalamanchili, Counsel for Petitioners/Accused

Page No. 2 of total 4 pages Orders in Crl. Mp. No. 1145 of 2025 in Crime No.988 of 2025

Nos.1 to 4 and that of Sri. T. Venkateshwara Prasad, Additional Public

Prosecutor for the Respondent/State and upon hearing both sides and perusal of material on record, this court passed the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 under section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”) praying the court to enlarge them on bail.

2.The contents of the petition are:

A complaint was lodged on 19-05-2025 at about 00:35 hours stating that on 18-05-2025 at around 20:30 hours, the defacto-Complainant along with her friends travelling in a car from Kokapet to Borabanda. While they were proceeding, they noticed that some individuals in an auto rickshaw were reportedly following them, subsequently, they stopped their car at tea shop near Kokapet junction to have tea and resumed their journey and upon reaching My Home Avatar signal, they stopped their vehicle and the persons from the auto got down, armed with sticks and stones and started damaging their car and they forced the complainant and her friends to get out of the vehicle and physically assaulted them with hands, stones and a knife allegedly attempted to kill them, as a result, the complainant sustained injuries to her right eye, back and a bleeding injury to the head caused by the knife and her friends also sustained bleeding injuries. The complainant further stated that due to previous disputes between them, the Accused persons attacked them with an intention to kill them and requested to take necessary action. On such report, a case was registered and investigated into.

3.Notice is given to Addl. Public Prosecutor and he filed his counter.

4.The learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 reported

Page No. 3 of total 4 pages Orders in Crl. Mp. No. 1145 of 2025 in Crime No.988 of 2025

before the court that the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 were falsely implicated

in this case and not having any previous criminal antecedents and as per the remand case diary, it clearly shows that the incident allegedly arose due to previous disputes between them. The learned counsel for the

Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 further submitted that the alleged injuries sustained are simple in nature and also discharged from the hospital within one day and the Medical legal Certificate shows that the injuries are simple in nature and the investigation is completed. Hqence prayed the court to allow the application by imposing any conditions.

5.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor having filed his counter, urged

before the Court that if the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 released on bail,

they may threaten the Victim and witnesses, tamper the evidence and may indulge similar activities and they may not cooperate with the investigation and may flee from the jurisdiction of this Court and hence sought for dismissal of the application.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Whether the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 are entitled for grant of bail as sought for?

8. POINT:A perusal of the record shows that the Petitioners/Accused

Nos.1 to 4 committed attempt to murder and caused injuries to the

Complainant on her right eye, back and a bleeding injuries to her head by knife and bleeding injury to her friend Navya to her right eye and left leg and her another friend namely Afsana also suffered an injury to her middle finger and back along with other minor injuries and if the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 released on bail, there is every possibility that they may commit or indulge in

Page No. 4 of total 4 pages Orders in Crl. Mp. No. 1145 of 2025 in Crime No.988 of 2025 similar type of offences and may threaten the victims and witnesses. Looking into the nature and gravity of offence of Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4, the

Court is not inclined to consider this application at this stage.

9.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 04th day of June, 2025.

I/C. IVAdditional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar.

Copy to :-

1. The Petitioners/Accused through their counsel.

1 of 4

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT :: AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: Sri P. Pradeep Kumar, XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, I/C IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

Tuesday, Dated this the 03rd day of June, 2025

Crl.MP.No.935 of 2025

IN

Crime No.338 OF 2025

Between:

Jaligama Srinivas Rao, S/o. J. Kishan Rao, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H No. 2-82, Gandhinagar, Parvatapur, Medipally, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

...Petitioner/Accused

AND

The State of Telangana, through PS Rajendranagar.

…Respondent / Complainant.

This Petition is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Rajau Goud, Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused and Sri T.Venkateshwara Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusal of the material papers, on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This bail petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, praying the court to enlarge him on bail.

2.The contents of the petition are:

2 of 4

A complaint was lodged stating that the father of the Complainant is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot Nos.62 and 63 in Sy. Nos.32, 33 and 34 (PT) admeasuring 247.5 square yards and 345.5 square yards respectively totaling to 593 square yards in Upparpally Village,

Rajendranagar Mandal and he recently downloaded EC of his properties and found that the Accused who is the GPA holder sold the two plots to one

Komerelly Vainya on 14-11-2024 through sale deed by forging document by trespassing into his property and further stated that he do not know these people and he never gave any GPA to anybody or sold the property to anybody. On such complaint the case was registered and investigated into.

3.The learned counsel for petitioner/Accused stated before the court that the Petitioner was falsely implicated in this case and the Defacto-

Complainant executed a registered GPA and got it validated vide file No.

13385/E/2024 and authorized Petitioner. It is further stated that the Accused filed a suit vide OS No.722/2024 against the Defendant therein seeking

Perpetual Injunction and as a counterblast to the said suit, the father of

Complainant filed the façade complaint before the Police with an ill-motive to claim ownership falsely over the subject plots and that the Petitioner hails from middle class family and having respect in the society and does not have any prior criminal antecedents and he also undertake to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court and prayed the court to allow the 3 of 4 application.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor got filed his counter and urged

before the court that the Accused cheated the complainant by cheating and

forgery of the documents and if he released on bail, there is every possibility of influencing the witnesses, tampering of evidence and may threaten the father of Complainant and his family members to withdraw the case and he may indulge in similar activity and hence prayed the court to dismiss the application.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Whether the petitioner/Accused is entitled for grant of bail as sought for ?

Point:-

7.On perusal of the record shows that the matter is in civil nature and as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that he got filed a suit vide OS No. 722/2024 seeking Perpetual Injunction against the father of the Complainant and the same is pending and as a counterblast, the

Complainant filed this present petition. It is alleged in the complaint that the

Accused with wrongful intention forged the documents and executed sale deed in favour of one K. Vainya, but the same cannot be decided at this stage. Therefore, I am of the view that the application may be allowed by imposing conditions.

4 of 4

8.In the result, the petition is allowed and the Petitioner/Accused is ordered to be released on bail; (i) on his surrender before the Court of XI

Additional Judicial Magistrate, Cyberabad of First Class at Rajendra Nagar on

or before 18-06-2024 and on such surrender, he shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs 20,000/- with two sureties each for the sum each to the satisfaction of the learned XI Additional Judicial

Magistrate, Cyberabad of First Class at Rajendra Nagar. (ii) The

Petitioner/Accused shall attend before the SHO Rajendranagar on every

Sunday in between 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM for three months or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier. (iii) The Petitioner/Accused is directed not to interfere with the process of investigation and not to tamper with the evidence and also not to involve in similar offences in future. (iv) The

Petitioner/Accused shall attend the Court on each and every adjournment without fail. (v) The Petitioner /Accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the

Court without prior intimation.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 03rd day of June, 2025.

I/C IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Page No. 1 of total 3 pages Orders in Crl. Mp. No. 1206 of 2025 in Crime No.432 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. M BHAVANI

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989,

CUM VII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC. IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

Tuesday, Dated this the 10th day of June, 2025

Crl.M.P.No.1206 of 2025

in

Cr.No. 432 of 2025

Between: Sohail Shah Khan, S/o Ayub Shah Khan, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. H No. 19-3-262/50/A, Acchi Reddy Nagar, Vattepally, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy district.

...Petitioner/ Accused No.4

AND

The State of Telangana, through PS Rajendranagar.

…Respondent / Complainant.

This Petition is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. Md. Azeemuddin, Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.4 and Sri T.Venkateshwara Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusal of the material papers, on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.2 under section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”) praying the court to enlarge him on bail.

2.The contents of the petition are:

A complaint was lodged on 21-04-2025 at about 09:22 hours stating that some unknown persons knocked the door and when he opened under threat

Page No. 2 of total 3 pages Orders in Crl. Mp. No. 1206 of 2025 in Crime No.432 of 2025 of knife four masked individuals forcibly entered into the house, robbed one pair of ear rings, two gold necklaces, silver anklets, cash of Rs.20,000/- and mobile phones. They fled away from the scene. On such report, a case was registered and investigated into.

3.Notice is given to Addl. Public Prosecutor and he filed his counter.

4.The learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.4 urged before the

Court that basing on the confession of accused Nos.1 and 2, the name of

Petitioner/accused no.4 herein was arrayed as one of the accused. No article that was robbed is seized by the police concerned and he is not involved in the alleged offence. The earlier bail application was dismissed by the Court stating that the antecedents of the accused No.5 are criminal in nature and it does relate to the

Petitioner/Accused No.4 herein. He is the sole breadwinner of the family and he is in judicial custody for the past 46 days. As investigation is completed, prayed the court to allow the application by imposing any conditions.

5.Having filed the counter, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged

before the Court that the Petitioner herein has criminal antecedents and in case

he is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility that he may threaten the complainant, other witnesses and may also disappear the evidence. Stating for so, sought for dismissal of application.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Whether the Petitioner/Accused No.4 is entitled for grant of bail as sought for?

8. POINT:A perusal of the remand case diary shows that material part of investigation is completed and therefore, further detention is not required.

Page No. 3 of total 3 pages Orders in Crl. Mp. No. 1206 of 2025 in Crime No.432 of 2025

However, looking into the criminal antecedents of the Petitioner/Accused No.4, the Court is of the view that imposing conditions would suffice.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed and the Petitioner/Accused No.4 is enlarged on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Addl. Magistrate of

First Class, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. He shall make

his apperance before the SHO concerned on every Saturday between 10:00 AM to 04:00 PM for two months or till laying of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court and shall deposit his passport, if any, before the above Court. Violation of any of the conditions entails cancellation of bail.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court,

on this the 10 th day of June, 2025.

FAC IVAdditional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar.

Copy to :-

1. The Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Addl. Magistrate of First Class, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The SHO, PS Rajendranagar.

3. The Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.4 on payment of usual charges.

4. Copy of the order sent to the below mentioned mail :- c pcherpalli123rangareddy@gmail.com.