Smt.M.Vani

Page Nos.1 of 9 Crl.M.P. No. 720/2026 in Cr. No. 01/2025

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, CYBERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

Present: SMT. M. VANI.

XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR

Tuesday, this the 19th day of May, 2026.

Crl.M.P.No. 720 of 202 6

IN

Cr.No. 01 of 202 5

BETWEEN:- Chhagan Lal @ Chegan Lal S/o. Dana Ram, aged about Nil, Occ: Business, R/o. Kumari Ka Vas, Nawa Khera PO Morli, District Sirohi, Rajasthan State. ….Petitioner/Accused No.34

AND

The State of Telangana, through Police Station Rachakonda. T.G. Anti Narcotic Bureau, Hyderabad.

Rep. by its Addl. Public Prosecutor. ....Respondent/Complainant

This Petition has come before me for final hearing on 15.05.2026 in the presence of M/s.P. Kusheel Kumar, Learned Counsel for Petitioner/Accused No.34 and of Smt. P. Manjula Devi, Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for State and upon hearing both sides and

perusal of material on record, this court passed the following:-

O R D E R

1.The Petitioner who is an Accused No.34 involved in Crime No.01 of 2025 of Police Station Rachakonda, T.G. Anti Narcotic Bureau,

Hyderabad registered under Section 8 (C) r/w. 22 (C), 27A, 27(a) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “N.D.P.S.”) has filed this petition under

Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as B.N.S.S”) seeking regular bail and that this is the 02nd bail application.

Page Nos.2 of 9 Crl.M.P. No. 720/2026 in Cr. No. 01/2025

2.The main case of the prosecution is that on 02-06-2025, Sub-

Inspector B. Jeevan Reddy of the Anti-Narcotics Bureau, Hyderabad, received credible information about a Nigerian national arriving near

Ammuguda Railway Station, Sainikpuri, to sell cocaine and ecstasy pills.

After following due procedure under the N.D.P.S Act recording information, informing superiors, and arranging mediators and a clues team, a police team conducted surveillance at the location and that at 12:40 PM, the suspect was identified, detained, and apprehended. Upon questioning, he confessed to possessing Narcotic Substances in his backpack. In the presence of mediators, the police recovered 150 grams of cocaine and 1100 ecstasy pills (MDMA), which were confirmed by the clues team and that the accused, identified as Emmanuel Bediako (alias

Maxwell/Max), revealed involvement in an international drug trafficking network operating between Nigeria and India, primarily based in Goa.

He admitted to past drug sales worth Crores of Rupees and detailed the roles of multiple co-accused involved in supply, distribution, and financial transactions. He further disclosed that he had recently transported drugs from Goa to Hyderabad to expand the network. The police seized the contraband, mobile phones, and related materials, and registered Crime No.1 of 2025 under the N.D.P.S. Act was registered.

3.The learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.34 submits that he has been falsely implicated in the present case with mala fide

Page Nos.3 of 9 Crl.M.P. No. 720/2026 in Cr. No. 01/2025 intention and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences.

He is a partner of M/s. Bharat Chhaganlal & Company, a long-standing and lawful Angadia business operating from Mumbai, Delhi,

Ahmedabad, and Rajasthan, with no office in Hyderabad or Goa. The seized cash pertains to legitimate business remittances arising from the traditional Angadia courier and remittance system, which is recognized in law and supported by proper records and Income Tax Returns and that the Petitioner has clean antecedents, no criminal history, and no prior involvement under the N.D.P.S. Act or any other penal law. No narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances were recovered from his possession or premises. The allegations against him are based solely on the alleged confessional statements of co-accused persons, particularly

Accused No.25, which are inadmissible in evidence in view of the judgment in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. There is no independent material, witness, mobile data, or financial evidence linking the Petitioner to any drug trafficking, financing, hawala activity, or criminal conspiracy.

4.The learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.34 further submitted that the investigating agency failed to establish any live link between the Angadia business and the alleged narcotics trade. No incriminating documents, loose papers, or evidence were found during the searches conducted on 02.06.2025 and 02.09.2025. The prosecution has merely presumed involvement based on lawful cash transactions

Page Nos.4 of 9 Crl.M.P. No. 720/2026 in Cr. No. 01/2025 without proving that the seized amount constitutes proceeds of crime.

The alleged investigation sustain from lack of admissible evidence, non- compliance with mandatory legal procedures, and absence of corroboration and that the prosecution case is based on suspicion, conjectures, and fabricated allegations intended to harass him and damage his lawful business and reputation. He satisfies the twin conditions under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S Act, as there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Petitioner/Accused No.34 has been in judicial custody for several days, and continued detention would cause irreparable hardship to his family and business. He is ready to furnish sufficient sureties and comply with any conditions imposed by the this

Court. Hence, prayed the Court to allow the Petition.

5.Notice is given to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and she filed counter and submitting that although the Petitioner/Accused

No.34 surrendered on 15.04.2026, he had earlier absconded, destroyed evidence (mobile phone), and evaded arrest after his anticipatory bail was rejected, indicating guilty intent and risk of fleeing and that the investigation in this crime revealed an international drug trafficking and hawala network. The petitioner/Accused No.34 is alleged to be a key financier and operator who used his Angadia business as a front to launder drug proceeds collected from Nigerian peddlers in Goa and

Page Nos.5 of 9 Crl.M.P. No. 720/2026 in Cr. No. 01/2025 transfer them abroad and that the evidence against him includes confessional statements of co-accused, his own confession, seized digital chats, hawala records, and recovery of ₹2.85 Crores cash from his

Mumbai office, linked to drug money. Statements of co-accused indicate he supervised operations across Mumbai, Delhi, and

Ahmedabad, handled drug proceeds, and earned a share in illegal profits and that the prosecution argues that recovery of Narcotics from him is not necessary, as offences under Sections 27A and 29 of the

N.D.P.S. Act cover financing and conspiracy. They assert full procedural compliance during search and seizure and that the the petitioner’s claim of lawful business and clean antecedents is false, and that filing income tax returns does not legitimize illicit proceeds. Given the strong prima facie evidence, the statutory bar under Section 37 N.D.P.S. Act applies, and the petitioner has failed to satisfy the conditions for bail and that the prosecution emphasizes that investigation is ongoing, further custodial interrogation is required, and releasing the petitioner may lead to absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.

Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

6.Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

7.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the Petitioner/Accused No.34 is entitled to be enlarged on bail as prayed for?

Page Nos.6 of 9 Crl.M.P. No. 720/2026 in Cr. No. 01/2025

POINT:

The Petitioner is Accused No.34 in Cr. No.01/2025 of Police

Station Rachakonda. T.G. Anti Narcotic Bureau, Hyderabad for the offence under Section 8 (C) r/w. 22 (C), 27A, 27(a) and 29 of N.D.P.S.

Act. The Petitioner/Accused No.34 was remanded to judicial Custody on 15.04.2026.

8.It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner is arrayed as Accused

No.34 in Crime No.01 of 2025 of Police Station Rachakonda, T.G. Anti

Narcotic Bureau, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c), 27A, 27(a) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The record discloses that the case pertains to a well-organized international narcotic drug trafficking syndicate involving supply, transportation, financing, hawala transactions, and distribution of commercial quantity narcotic substances between Nigeria, Goa, Mumbai, and Hyderabad.

9.A perusal of the material placed before this Court prima facie reveals that huge quantities of contraband i.e., 150 grams of Cocaine and 1100 Ecstasy pills (MDMA), constituting commercial quantity, were seized during the course of investigation. The investigation further disclosed the involvement of several accused persons operating in conspiracy and coordination for trafficking and financing illicit narcotic activities. The allegations against the present Petitioner/Accused No.34 are not confined to mere suspicion, but are supported by statements of co-accused persons, digital evidence, financial transaction records,

Page Nos.7 of 9 Crl.M.P. No. 720/2026 in Cr. No. 01/2025 hawala links, and recovery of substantial cash amounting to ₹2.85

Crores from the office premises connected to him. Though the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the said amount pertains to lawful Angadia business transactions, such defence is a matter for trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage. The investigation material prima facie indicates that the Petitioner was actively involved in channelizing and laundering proceeds generated through narcotic drug trafficking under the guise of Angadia business operations. The offences alleged under Sections 27A and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act relate to financing illicit traffic and criminal conspiracy, for which actual physical possession or recovery of contraband from the Petitioner is not a sine qua non.

10.The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the case rests solely upon confessional statements and that the same are inadmissible in view of the law laid down in Tofan Singh Vs. State of

Tamil Nadu cannot be accepted at this stage. The prosecution has specifically placed reliance not only upon statements of co-accused, but also upon digital chats, hawala transaction details, recovery of huge unexplained cash, conduct of the Petitioner in absconding, destruction of mobile phone evidence, and other corroborative circumstances collected during investigation. At the stage of considering bail under the N.D.P.S. Act, the Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or determine admissibility conclusively.

Page Nos.8 of 9 Crl.M.P. No. 720/2026 in Cr. No. 01/2025

Further, the record discloses that after rejection of anticipatory bail, the

Petitioner absconded and ultimately surrendered only on 15.04.2026.

The prosecution specifically alleged that he attempted to destroy material evidence by damaging or concealing his mobile phone. Such conduct of the Petitioner prima facie indicates consciousness of guilt and creates a serious apprehension that if released on bail, he may again abscond, tamper with prosecution evidence, influence witnesses, or obstruct the ongoing investigation.

11.It is pertinent to note that the offences alleged involve commercial quantity narcotic substances, thereby attracting the statutory rigour under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Unless the twin conditions contemplated under Section 37 are satisfied, the accused cannot be enlarged on bail. This Court, upon careful consideration of the entire material available on record, is unable to record satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged against him. Further, having regard to the nature and gravity of accusations, his alleged role in financing and laundering drug proceeds, and his conduct during investigation, this

Court is also not satisfied that he is not likely to commit similar offences or misuse liberty if released on bail. The offences alleged are grave and have serious ramifications on society at large. Drug trafficking and financing of narcotic networks pose a serious threat to public health, public order, and the nation’s youth. Economic channels facilitating

Page Nos.9 of 9 Crl.M.P. No. 720/2026 in Cr. No. 01/2025 narcotic trade are equally dangerous and require strict judicial scrutiny.

At this stage of investigation, when the investigating agency is yet to unearth the complete network and money trail, releasing the Petitioner on bail would seriously prejudice the prosecution case. Hence, considering the seriousness of allegations, prima facie material available on record, bar contained under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, conduct of the Petitioner, and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner/Accused No.34 is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the Point is answered.

12. IN THE RESULT, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 19th day of May, 2026.

XIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Copies to :- All Concerned.

Page Nos.1 of 7 Crl.M.P. No. 699/2026 in Cr. No.957/2023 in NDSC No. 20/2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

Present: SMT. M. VANI,

XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR

Tuesday, this the 19th day of May, 2026.

Crl.M.P. No. 699 of 20 26

IN

Cr.No. 957 of 20 23

IN

NDSC No. 20 of 2026

(P.S. Narsingi)

BETWEEN:- Nekkanti Srinivas @ Baba @ Srinivas Choudary @ Babaset @ Abdul Raheman @ Rehman Khasim Sheik, S/o. Venkata Rao, aged about 57 Years, Occ: Agriculture N/o. D. No.2-217, Siragarapalle Village, Yalamanchili Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh State. R/o. Srinivasa Nagar, HDFC Bank, Opposite Road, A.V. Appa Rao, Road Branch, Rajahmundry, West Godavari District.

...Petitioner/Accused No.1.

AND

The State of Telangana through Station Hosue Officer Police Station Narsingi.

Rep. by its Addl. Public Prosecutor. ...Respondent/Complainant

This Petition has come before me on 18.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Dr. G. Siva Rama Krishna Reddy, Learned counsel for Petitioner/Accused No.1; and of Smt P. Manjula Devi, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant; and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is a second bail Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya

Nagrik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “B.N.S.S”) for grant of bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for the offences punishable

Under Section 8(C) r/w. 20 (b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “ N.D.P.S”) in Cr.

No.957/2023 of Police Station Narsingi.

Page Nos.2 of 7 Crl.M.P. No. 699/2026 in Cr. No.957/2023 in NDSC No. 20/2026

2.The main crux of the case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner /Accused No.1 was involved in a substantial commercial quantity of

Narcotic drugs case, specifically 691 Kgs of Ganja. The seizure of material objects, including three mobile phones and crime vehicle ie.,

DCM bearing No. AP-04-Y0459, indicates his involvement in the alleged commission of the crime.

3.The learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.1 submitted that he is an agriculturist falsely implicated in a Ganja transportation case, with no direct recovery or incriminating material against him except an alleged confessional statement. He has been in judicial custody for over 235 days and that the investigation is completed and charge sheet also filed and same is numbered as NDSC No. 20/2026. It is further argued that the seized material was improperly classified and weighed as Ganja, contrary to the legal definition under the Act

No samples were collected at the scene of offence. The seizure report (S1 & S2) is not reflected in the mediators’ report dated 12.09.2023, and no samples were drawn or marked from the alleged 144 packets seized and that the Material Objects were forwarded for chemical analysis vide

Lr.Dis. No.1948/2023 dated 18.11.2023. Initially, only 50 grams were reportedly sent to T.S.F.S.L, Red Hills, Hyderabad vide No.

SFL(TS)/10440/NAR/2023 dated 22.11.2023. However, the F.S.L report later mentions analysis of 98.81 grams (net weight) of Green dried plant material with flowering tops and seeds, creating a material

Page Nos.3 of 7 Crl.M.P. No. 699/2026 in Cr. No.957/2023 in NDSC No. 20/2026 contradiction. Further, no call detail records were recovered or filed in the supplemental charge sheet (NDSC No.20 of 2026 and that as per the complaint and FIR, the complainant ie., Detective Inspector of Police allegedly received credible information at 12:00 PM on 12.09.2023.

However, a request letter had already been addressed to the Clue Team

In-Charge, Madhapur Division, Cyberabad at 11:30 AM on the same day.

Similarly, a request letter was also sent to the Tahsildar, Gandipet

Mandal, R.R. District at 11:30 AM on 12.09.2023 and that the above sequence clearly indicates fabrication and manipulation of records, as official request letters were prepared prior to the alleged receipt of credible information at 12:00 PM on 12.09.2023. This creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case and supports the contention that the case is false and fabricated and requested to be released on bail. Hence prayed to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail.

4.Notice is given to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and she filed counter submitting that the offence involves a commercial quantity of 691 Kgs of Ganja, attracting the bar under Section 37 of the

N.D.P.S. Act, and the mandatory conditions for bail are not satisfied.

The Petitioner/Accused No.1 is the main kingpin and supplier, who masterminded inter-state drug trafficking using a specially modified vehicle and co-ordinated other accused and that the case is supported by corroborated confessional statements under Section 67 N.D.P.S. Act,

Page Nos.4 of 7 Crl.M.P. No. 699/2026 in Cr. No.957/2023 in NDSC No. 20/2026 along with seizure, vehicle details, call records, and F.S.L. report confirming the contraband. The Petitioner/Accused is a habitual offender involved in multiple (10) prior N.D.P.S cases, including a previous conviction, indicating continuing criminal activity and that he absconded after the offence, showing a likelihood of evading justice again. There is a strong possibility of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses if released. The offence involves an organized inter-state drug network posing a serious threat to society. Further, investigation is still ongoing against an absconding co-accused, and releasing of Petitioner/Accused No.1 may hinder further investigation.

Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is entitled to be enlarged on bail as prayed for?

POINT:

The Petitioner is Accused No.1 in Cr. No.957/2023 of Police

Station Narsingi for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w.20(b)(ii)(C) of

N.D.P.S Act and that he has been remanded to judicial custody on 14.08.2025 on execution of Prisoner Transit Warrant.

7.The allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 are grave and serious in nature. The prosecution case discloses seizure of an enormous commercial quantity of contraband i.e., 691 Kgs of Ganja,

Page Nos.5 of 7 Crl.M.P. No. 699/2026 in Cr. No.957/2023 in NDSC No. 20/2026 which squarely attracts the rigours of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The quantity involved is not a small or intermediate quantity, but a huge commercial quantity, having serious impact on public health and society at large. As per the prosecution material, the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is not a mere carrier, but is alleged to be the main kingpin and mastermind behind the organized inter-state transportation and supply of contraband. The investigation reveals that the contraband was transported through a specially modified vehicle and that the Petitioner coordinated the activities of other accused persons. The allegations prima facie indicate his active role in an organized drug trafficking network. The contention of the learned counsel for the

Petitioner/Accused No.1 regarding alleged discrepancies in sampling, seizure procedure, F.S.L. report and timing of official communications are all matters to be adjudicated during the course of trial after appreciation of evidence. At this stage, this Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or record findings on disputed questions of fact. Prima facie, the material collected by the Investigating Agency, including seizure proceedings, confessional statements, vehicle details and F.S.L. report, discloses involvement of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in the commission of the offence.

8.The prosecution has specifically contended that the Petitioner/

Accused No.1 is involved in as many as 10 prior N.D.P.S. cases, including a previous conviction, which prima facie demonstrates his habitual

Page Nos.6 of 7 Crl.M.P. No. 699/2026 in Cr. No.957/2023 in NDSC No. 20/2026 involvement in Narcotic offences and continuing criminal activity. The criminal antecedents of the Petitioner dis-entitle him from claiming discretionary relief of bail. It is further evident from the record that after commission of the offence, the Petitioner/Accused No.1 absconded and was subsequently secured on execution of Prisoner

Transit Warrant and remanded to judicial custody on 14.08.2025. His conduct clearly indicates a likelihood of evading the process of law if enlarged on bail. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses and hampering further investigation cannot be brushed aside lightly, particularly when investigation against absconding co-accused is still pending. Considering the organized nature of the offence, there exists every possibility of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 interfering with the investigation process if released on bail. That Under Section 37 of the

N.D.P.S. Act, bail cannot be granted unless this Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In the present case, having regard to the nature and gravity of accusations, the quantity of contraband seized, the criminal antecedents of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 and the stage of investigation, this Court is unable to record such satisfaction as mandated under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Therefore, considering the seriousness of the allegations, the statutory embargo under Section

Page Nos.7 of 7 Crl.M.P. No. 699/2026 in Cr. No.957/2023 in NDSC No. 20/2026 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the criminal antecedents of the Petitioner and the possibility of absconding and tampering with evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly this point is answered.

9. IN THE RESULT, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 19th day of May, 2026.

XIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Copies to : All concerned.

Page Nos.1 of 6 Crl.M.P. No. 723/2026 in Cr. No.322/2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

Present: SMT. M. VANI,

XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR

MONDAY, THIS THE 18th DAY OF MAY, 2026.

Crl.M.P. No.723 OF 2026

IN

Cr. No. 322 OF 2026

(POLICE STATION CHAITANYAPURI).

BETWEEN:- Vadlapudi Dhanunjaya S/o. Chegaiah, aged about 30 Years, Occ: Private Job, R/o. Taniyala Village, Doravari Sathram Mandal, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh.

....Petitioner/Accused.

AND

The State of Telangana, through Station House Officer, Police Station Chaitanyapuri.

Rep. by its Addl. Public Prosecutor. ....Respondent/Complainant

This Petition has come before me for final hearing on 15.05.2026 in the presence of Sri Devineni Venkata Rao,, Learned Counsel for Petitioner/Accused; and of Smt P. Manjula Devi, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant; and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is the second bail Petition filed under Section 483 of

Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “B.N.S.S”) seeking for grant of bail to the Petitioner/Accused for the offences punishable Under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS”) in Cr. No.322/2026 of Police Station

Chaitanyapuri.

Page Nos.2 of 6 Crl.M.P. No. 723/2026 in Cr. No.322/2026

2. The brief facts of the Prosecution case are that on 05.03.2026 at 19:45 hours received complaint from the defacato complainant/

Victim/XXX in which she stated that the she and the accused developed an acquaintance over the phone in the year 2025, that on 10.10.2025, the accused lured the complainant to a Regal Stays Luxury Room in

Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, where he allegedly engaged in forcible sexual intercourse under the false promise of marriage. A similar incident occurred on 14.10.2025 at the same location, thereafter in the month of

January, 2026, the accused refused to marry the victim, stated that he would follow his parents' choice, and blocked her contact. As such the defacato complainant requested to take necessary legal action against the Accused as per the law.

3.The learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused submitted that the victim expressed her unwillingness to continue the case or support the prosecution. The de-facto complainant, in her affidavit, stated that the complaint was lodged due to misunderstanding and clarified that both parties were in a consensual relationship. It is further submitted that the accused recently lost his father, resulting in depression and communication issues between the parties, as such the defacto complainant filed the complaint in an angry manner. The learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused relies upon the judgment in Sanoj

Kumar Mishra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another, wherein the Hon’ble

Page Nos.3 of 6 Crl.M.P. No. 723/2026 in Cr. No.322/2026

Delhi High Court considered the consensual nature of the relationship while granting bail. It is submitted that no ingredients of “false promise of marriage” are made out and therefore Section 69 B.N.S. is not attracted prima facie and that the Petitioner/Accused is an innocent, belongs to a respectable family and will abide by terms and conditions and ready and willing to perform sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of this Court while granting bail to the Petitioner/Accused and that the investigation has been completed and witness statements have already been recorded; as such, there is no possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Hence prayed to enlarge the

Petitioner/Accused on bail.

4.Notice is given to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and she filed counter submitting that there is a risk of tampering with evidence and threatening witnesses; the accused may create fear among the complainant and witnesses; he may abscond or fail to co- operate with the investigation; there is a likelihood of repeating similar offences; securing his presence during trial may be difficult; he may influence or induce witnesses or even flee abroad; he has not been co- operating with the investigation; and allegations of financial misconduct, including misuse of funds, require custodial interrogation for proper investigation and lastly she contended that in this case investigation is in progress. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

Page Nos.4 of 6 Crl.M.P. No. 723/2026 in Cr. No.322/2026 5. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record and citations filed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused.

6. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the Petitioner/Accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail as prayed for?

POINT:

The Petitioner is Accused in Cr. No.322/2026 of Police Station

Chaitanyapuri for the offence under Section 69 of BNS, the

Petitioner/Accused is remanded to judicial custody since 17.04.2026.

7.The allegations against the Petitioner/Accused are grave and serious in nature. The specific case of the prosecution is that the

Petitioner/Accused established physical relations with the victim on repeated occasions by inducing her under a false promise of marriage and subsequently refused to marry her. At this stage, the material placed on record, including the complaint and statements recorded during investigation, prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offence, and the contention of the learned counsel for the

Petitioner/Accused that the relationship between the parties was consensual and that the de-facto complainant is no longer willing to prosecute the matter cannot, by itself, be a ground to enlarge the accused on bail at this stage. The allegations pertain to exploitation of the victim on the assurance of marriage and the same requires thorough investigation and appreciation of evidence during trial. The

Page Nos.5 of 6 Crl.M.P. No. 723/2026 in Cr. No.322/2026 truth or otherwise of the defence set up by the accused can only be decided after full-fledged trial and not at the stage of considering bail and further, the affidavit allegedly filed by the de-facto complainant stating that the complaint was lodged due to misunderstanding cannot be given undue weight at this preliminary stage, particularly when the offence alleged is of serious nature affecting the dignity and bodily liberty of a woman. There is every possibility of the victim being influenced, pressured, or induced after registration of the crime. The willingness and genuineness of such affidavit are matters to be adjudicated during the course of trial and the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused that investigation is completed and statements of witnesses are recorded is also not sufficient to grant bail.

As rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the investigation is still in progress and release of the accused at this stage may hamper the investigation. There is a reasonable apprehension that the accused may influence or threaten the de-facto complainant and other material witnesses, thereby affecting the fair course of investigation and trial. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel

for the Petitioner/Accused is differentiable on facts and does not come

to the aid of the Petitioner at this stage and that the every bail application has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In the present case, having regard to the nature of

Page Nos.6 of 6 Crl.M.P. No. 723/2026 in Cr. No.322/2026 accusations and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner/Accused at this stage. Accordingly, the bail petition stands dismissed.

8. IN THE RESULT, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 18th day of May, 2026.

XIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Copies to: All concerned.

Page Nos. 1 of 5 Crl.M.P. No.727-2026 in Cr.No.634-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, CYBERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

Present: SMT. M. VANI, XIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. Tuesday, this the 19th day of May, 2026.

Crl.M.P. No. 727 of 202 6

IN

Cr. No. 634 of 202 6

BETWEEN: Mohammed Hyder Asad S/o. Mohd. Mahmood, aged about 24 Years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H. No. 17-8-415/416, Bagh-E-Jahara, Hyderabad.

...Petitioner/Accused

AND

The State of Telangana through Station House Officer, Police Station Chanda Nagar,

Rep by its Addl. Public Prosecutor. ...Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming on 05.01.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Amarnath, Learned counsel for Petitioner/Accused No.4; and of Smt P. Manjula Devi, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant; and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “B.N.S.S.”) for grant of anticipatory bail in Cr.No.634/2026 of Police Station Chaitanyapuri, for the offences under Sections 69, 127(1), 318(4), 351(2), 352 r/w. 3(5) of

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “B.N.S.”).

2.Notice of this petition is given to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, who opposed the petition by filing counter.

3.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused argued that the

Petitioner/Accused herein is an innocent and he is nothing to do with the

Page Nos. 2 of 5 Crl.M.P. No.727-2026 in Cr.No.634-2026 alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated with malafide intention and ulterior motive to harass the Petitioner in fact the Petitioner is no way concerned nor connected with the alleged offence and that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner have committed the alleged offence, on the other hand there is no iota of truth whtatsoever in the alleged offence and that the Petitioner is ready and willing to perform sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of this Court and further ready to face trial to prove his innocence in the above case moreover the Petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the investigating agency if required for investigation purpose.

4.It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner/

Accused that there is an unexplained delay in filing the complaint, despite the alleged incidents having occurred on 24.08.2025. The complainant continued to remain in contact with the petitioner and voluntarily maintained the relationship through the dating application “Schmooze” until 10.05.2026. The relationship between the parties was consensual, developed over time, and there was no allegation of force, threat, or coercion at the initial stage. The allegations regarding promise of marriage are vague in nature and that the allegations relating to gold and money are purely civil disputes arising out of a personal relationship and are being given a criminal colour. The FIR was lodged only after disputes arose between the parties, creating serious doubt about the genuineness of the allegations and that the

Page Nos. 3 of 5 Crl.M.P. No.727-2026 in Cr.No.634-2026 complainant demanded Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) from the Petitioner/Accused to settle the matter, indicating a monetary motive behind the complaint and that the entire case is based solely on the complainant’s statements without any independent corroborative evidence. The petitioner is a 24 year-old individual with permanent residence, no risk of absconding, and is willing to co-operate fully with the investigation and comply with any conditions imposed by this Court; and finally praying this Court to grant anticipatory bail.

5.On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition by filing Counter by alleging that if the Petitioner/Accused is granted anticipatory bail the Petitioner/Accused may threaten and also tampering the evidence and the victim is likely to faith in the law and that the Petitioner/Accused is absconding since from the date of offence occurred and that if the Petitioner/Accused is released on bail the investigating agency may difficult to proceed with further investigation and would definitely repeat the similar offence and that if the

Petitioner/Accused was granted bail he will not co-operate with the investigation agency and thereby it results in delay in completion of the investigation process; and finally prayed to dismiss the anticipatory bail petition.

6.Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

7. Basing on the contentions on both the parties, now the Point for determination before this Court is:

Page Nos. 4 of 5 Crl.M.P. No.727-2026 in Cr.No.634-2026

“ Whether the Petitioner/Accused is entitled for grant of

anticipatory bail as prayed for ? If so, on what conditions ?

8.POINT:

The allegations against the Petitioner/Accused is that on 10.05.2026 at about 22:30 hours, the complainant/victim woman lodged a complaint alleging that she came into contact with the

Petitioner/accused/Mohammed Hyder Asad, through the “Schmooze” dating application on 13.07.2025. Thereafter, both developed acquaintance and met personally at DSL Virtue Mall, Uppal. It is alleged that the accused induced the complainant into a relationship on the promise of marriage and established physical intimacy with her on 24.08.2025 at her residence during the absence of her parents. It is further alleged that the complainant subsequently became pregnant and both parties approached Keyan Women Fertility Centre, Madhapur, for medical treatment and abortion procedures. During the course of treatment, the accused allegedly obtained gold ornaments belonging to the complainant, weighing approximately 12–15 grams initially, and later a gold necklace weighing about 50–60 grams, purportedly for meeting medical expenses and treatment charges and that after the abortion procedure conducted on 02.11.2025, the accused allegedly failed to return the gold ornaments, avoided the complainant, and later handed over a fake chain in place of the original gold necklace. It is also alleged that when the complainant approached the residence of the

Page Nos. 5 of 5 Crl.M.P. No.727-2026 in Cr.No.634-2026 accused, she was threatened by the accused, his friends, and family members. On the basis of the said allegations, as such the defacto complainant requested to take necessary legal action against the accused in accordance with law.

9.As seen from the record, the offence alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner/Accused is grave in nature. In the event of granting bail, there is likelihood of the Petitioner/Accused threatening the witnesses including the defacto complainant and which may cause hurdle to the investigation or the Petitioner/Accused might repeat similar offence and thereby the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted in her Counter that if the Petitioner/Accused granted bail, he will not co-operate with the investigation agency and thereby it results in delay in completion of the investigation process. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, it appears that there is a prima facie case against the Petitioner/Accused and that due to the specific involvement of the Petitioner/Accused and in the event of that the anticipatory bail cannot be granted. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

10. IN THE RESULT, this petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer on computer directly, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of May, 2026.

XIII-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, R.R. District, at L.B. Nagar. Copy to: All concerned.

1 Crl.M.P. No.724 of 2026 in Cr. No.242 of 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT. AT L.B. NAGAR

Present: SMT. M. VANI,

XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR

Monday, this the 18th day of May, 2026.

Crl.M.P. No. 724 of 20 26

IN

Cr.No. 242 of 20 26

BETWEEN: Kommanapalli Venkatesh @ Venkanna S/o. Yadaiah, aged about 40 Years, Occ: Real Estate Business, R/o. H. No. 3-28, Tahallavellemula Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..…Petitioner/Accused.

AND

The State of Telangana. through Station House Officer, Police Station Hayath Nagar. Rep. by its Addl. Public Prosecutor. ..…Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming before me for hearing on 15.05.2026 in the presence of Sri B. Ramakrishna Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused and of Smt. P. Manjula Devi, Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court made the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1.This is a first bail Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya

Nagrik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “B.N.S.S”) seeking for grant of bail to the Petitioner/Accused for the offences punishable Under Section 64(2)(m), 137(2), 318(4), 351(2) and 142 of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS”) in Cr.

No.242/2026 of Police Station Hayath Nagar.

2 Crl.M.P. No.724 of 2026 in Cr. No.242 of 2026

2.The main crux of the case of the prosecution are that on 18.02.2025 at 12:30 hrs, a complaint was received from the husband of the victim woman stating that their marriage was solemnized in the year 2004 and they have two children. On 12.02.2025 at about 11:30

A.M., while he was at office, his daughter informed him over phone that her mother was missing from the house. He, along with his in-laws, searched for her at nearby places, relatives, and friends, but could not trace her. During enquiry, he came to know that his wife was allegedly an illegal contact with one Komaplly Venkanna/Accused, resident of

Chityala Mandal, Nalgonda District, presently residing at Lecturer’s

Colony, Hayathnagar. He suspected that his wife might have left with the said person. Hence, he is requested to take necessary action against the Accused as per law.

3.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused submitted that the

Petitioner/Accused is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime and that he is a well-educated, law-abiding citizen with no criminal antecedents and is the sole earning member of his family. It is further submitted that the petitioner/accused and the victim were childhood friends and classmates, who reconnected during a get-together in the year 2022 and thereafter maintained cordial relations and regular contact. The petitioner/Accused contends that the victim and her husband, with an intention to extract money, falsely implicated him by creating fabricated allegations and that victim’s 3 Crl.M.P. No.724 of 2026 in Cr. No.242 of 2026 statement recorded under Section 183 is contradictory, as she stated both that she voluntarily eloped with the petitioner under the guise of marriage and that she was forcibly taken by him, making the allegations doubtful and a matter for trial. It is also stated that the FSL report does not support the allegations against the petitioner and that the investigation is substantially completed, material witnesses have been examined, and only filing of the charge sheet remains. Therefore, there is no necessity for continued judicial custody, nor any possibility of tampering with evidence and that the Petitioner/Accused undertakes to appear before the Court as and when required and ready to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of this Court while granting bail to the Petitioner/Accused. Hence prayed to enlarge the Petitioner/

Accused on bail.

4. Notice is given to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and she filed counter submitting the offences alleged against the accused are grave and heinous, involving repeated rape, wrongful confinement, cheating, criminal intimidation, and misappropriation of the victim’s gold and cash. There exists a strong prima facie case based on the consistent statements of the victim recorded before police and under

Section 183 B.N.S.S. It is alleged that the accused induced the victim with false promises of marriage, forcibly took her from Hayathnagar to

Gachibowli, confined her for approximately three months, subjected her to repeated sexual assault, and prevented her from contacting anyone.

4 Crl.M.P. No.724 of 2026 in Cr. No.242 of 2026

Further, the accused is said to have misappropriated the victim’s gold ornaments and cash of Rs.5,00,000, sold part of the gold in

Jaggayyapet, and pledged others at Manappuram Gold Loan, with recovery and evidence collection still pending. Custodial interrogation is necessary for recovery of the ornaments, verification of financial transactions, identification of the scene of offence, collection of CCTV footage, digital evidence and examination of the accused’s seized mobile phone. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

5.Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the Petitioner/Accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail as prayed for?

POINT:

The Petitioner is Accused in Cr. No.242/2025 of Police Station

Hayath Nagar for the offence under Section 64(2)(m), 137(2), 318(4), 351(2) and 142 of BNS, the Petitioner/Accused is remanded to judicial custody since 06.05.2026.

7.The Petitioner/Accused is facing serious and heinous offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 137(2), 318(4), 351(2), and 142 of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including repeated rape, wrongful confinement, cheating, criminal intimidation, and misappropriation of the victim’s gold and cash. The allegations are supported by consistent statements of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S and are prima facie 5 Crl.M.P. No.724 of 2026 in Cr. No.242 of 2026 serious in nature. It is alleged that the accused induced the victim under false promises of marriage, forcibly took her from Hayathnagar to

Gachibowli, confined her for approximately three months, subjected her to repeated sexual assault, and prevented her from contacting anyone.

Further, he is alleged to have misappropriated gold ornaments and cash, sold part of the gold, and pledged others, with recovery and crucial evidence still pending. Custodial interrogation is necessary for recovery of property, verification of financial transactions, identification of the scene of offence, collection of digital and documentary evidence, and examination of the accused’s mobile phone.

Considering the gravity of the offences, the ongoing nature of the investigation, the necessity of custodial interrogation, and there is a possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, this

Court is not inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail at this stage, as such the petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. IN THE RESULT, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, by the Stenographer directly on computer corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of May, 2026.

XIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

Copies to : All concerned.