The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Through SHO, P.S. Narsapur, Nirmal District, Rep-. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Rathod Swaraj, S/o Bannilal, age 44 years, Occ-Agriculture, H.No.5-261 , Anjani Thanda, Kusli, R/m Narsapur, Nirmal

3. More Chandrakanth, S/o Rama Rao, Age 45 years, Occlabour, R/o HNo. 2-32, Sathgaom, R/m Lokeswharam, Nirmal Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 impleaded as per court order dated O4-O3'2O25 vide l.A.No.l ot 2025 made in CRLP.No.Z172 ot 2O25. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the S.H.O., P.S. Narsapur, Nirmal District or any other arresting officer to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the Cr.No. 16 of 2O25 of the Police, P.S. Narsapur, Nirmal District on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S Surender Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Kondadi Alay Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos-2 & 3. CRIMINAL PErrl!e[ xei?439 !E2S?g Between: Saini Mohan Rao, S/o. Rajeshwar, Age about. 54 years, Occ. Govt Employee, R/o. H. No.2-1 4,Timmapur, Bhainsa,Nirmal District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND '1. The State of Telangana, Through Public Prosecutor, PS.Narsapur-G,Nirmal District ...Complainant 2. Smt. Badri Laxmi Visharada, Wo,Chandra Mohan, Aged about 53 years,Occ. Govt Service, R/o. HNo. 7$8, Kuntala Mandal, Nirmal Distric{. ...RespondenUDe-facto Complainant Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.16 of 2025 ot P.S.Narsapur, Nirmal District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Anugu Sanjeeva Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made ttre following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2L72 AND 2435 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER: These criminal petitions are filed by the petitioners/A. I and A.2 seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Cr.No. 16 ot 2025 of Narsapur Police Station, Nirmal District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 75 (l) {i) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023,9(0,9(p) r/w.1O, ll rlw.I2 of ttre Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

2. The case of tl.e prosecution is that the complainant who is the Supervisor of ICDS, Narsapur-G Maldal, gave complaint to the police on O3.O2.2O25 stating that she received information that some teachers at ZPHS, Narsapur-G School were harassing students. Upon interaction with the students, a lOe class students alleged that their maths and teacher had been inappropriately touching her for a year, and her English teacher had called her to his room, touched her, and kissed her cheek about three months back. The students also claimed that the maths teacher had behaved similarly with her friend. Despite discussing the incident with the parents, they chose not to hle a complaint due to fear of repercussions, prompting the complainant to report the matter to the police. Basing on thc said 2 complaint, the police registered the case against the accused for the said offences.

3. Hearrl Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for tl e petitioner in Crl.P.No.2t72 of 2025, Sri A. Sanjeeva Reddy, learned counsel for ttre petitioner in Crl.P.No.2435 of 2O25, Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Crl.F.No.2 l'l2 of 2O25 and learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that even according to the complaint, the students were harassed since one year, but at any point of time, neither the students nor their par€nts havr: intimated the said harassment to the Head Master or to the police, u,hich itself shows tl'rat petitioners were falsely implicated in this case. There is delay in lodgrng the report. They furtlrer submitted that petitioners are not teaching the loe Class students, they never went to the said class to teach Maths or English and they are not having any acquaintance witl' the alleged victims. Therefore, the question of mis-behaving witl. them does not arise. Neither the alleged victims nor their parents have given any complaint to the police or to the elders at any point of tirne, just, basing on the instructioris of DWO, Nirmal, the defacto complainant has filed a false complaint q,ithout even enclosing the alleged statements of ttre 3 victim gir1s. The allegations made against the accused do not constitute the above offences. As such, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. On behalf of tl.e victims, implead petitircn is hled in Crl.P.No.2172 of 2025. Arcording to them, no such incident occurred with the victims and ttrey were forced to lodge false complaint against tl.e petitioners and even now police are harassing them. They never gave complaint against the petitioners/A' 1 and A.2. Furttrer, according to the parents of ttre victims, they were threatened and forced to give statements against the accused persons, but their daughters informed that no such incidents involving tJle accused persons ever had happened- The ofhcials of Social Welfare Department, District Educational Department and Child Welfare Department carne to the school and forced them ald their daughters to give statements against the accused persons, when they refused, they were necked out and forced their daughters to give statements against the accused and threatened them that police complaint would be lodged against them. Though the implead petitioners tried to lodge report before higher offrcials, they were never allowed to meet them and that tJley are humiliated in the Societ5z and their reputation is totally damaged. 4

6. On the other hand, learned Additional public prosecutor would submit that petitioners are not eatitled for any bail- The alleged offence took place in a school and these petitioners are the teachers it ttre said school. The statement of the victim girls clearly shows the abusive behavior of teachers. The implead petitioners have frted irriplead petition due to threats or worr over by the accused. When the petitioners were not even granted bail, they tried to influence the witnesses. If the petitioners are gralted bail, certainly, they will influence the respondents and the statements of victims clearly show the allegations against the petitioners herein. Furt}er, the students wrote a letter to the Hon'ble Governor which shows the seriousness in the crime. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled for bail. Their custodial interrogation is necessaqr. As such, requested the Court to disrriss these applications. 7- Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel and the material on record, the allegations rgainsf the petitioners are that they mis-behaved with the students of 10e Class, whereas the contention of petitioners is that ti.ey ar€ not teaching the loe class students and the students themselves stated that they never reported any mis-behaviour of the petitioners. However, it is not the stage to consider tlre said contentions. As the petitioners being responsiblc persons in the society, the allegations made against them are very serious in nature. At this stage, this Court cannot consider ttre contentions of the victims' counsel as there are already statements of the victims on record which needs investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to gran t bail to the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. Miscella-neous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR / SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Nirmal District. 2- The Additionar Judiciar First crass tvtagr';trate ;rNirmar, Nirmar District. 3. The station House Officer, Narsapur p-olice Station, Nirmal District 4 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, t-t6rr court for the state or ieiangana at 5. One CC to Sri S Surender Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 6. One CC to Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Advocaie 1Oe0C1 I. 9n" !! !o Sf Anugu Sanjeeva Reddy, nOvocate tOpiiCl 8. Two CD Copies Hyderabad (OUT) ADK/gh ,. a % I i I HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.2172 and 2435 of 2025 1HE S14 ..: -) r) ( (;) ). +' 11 JUll zffi Dr -!e41r1rt DISMISSING THE BOTH CRLP