The High Court · 2025

1 ' Malikireddy chandra sekhara Reddy, S/o. Marikireddy pedda Hussain Reddv. Ageqs1_years, occ: MD.of nzs. Sinoitone iriiJliai, prr Ltd, ivd.;di No.808, phoenix-8. Meenkashi S3ytonge,-kha;iariei,'konoaprr., Fiyil;;;d;, N/o. Jammalamadugu of faOapa Oistrici. 2. Yeruva Srilaxmi, Wo. Malikireddy Charidra Sekhara Reddy, aged 44 years, occ: Director of M/s. Sandstoni: tnria-inoiJ i;rt.-Lto., nio.-rrrt N6^edSl Phoenix-B, Meenkashi Skytonge, xninamei, iionoabri, nv,i"r-juio- ...RESPONDENT/CoMPLAINANT No.2 & 3 Petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to cancer the bair granted to the Respondents/Accused No.2 and 3 vide orders dated 2ot4t2o24 passed by the Hon'bre Metroporitan'sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crt.M.p.No.1 5SB\2O24 in Cr.No.106/2024. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri SyED YASAR MAMooN, Additionar pubric prosecutor, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri N.NAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CRIMIN AL PETITION NO:67 s60F 2024 Between: Mamidi Gnaneshwar, S/o Late'M. Venkatesham,. Aged about 52 years,. occ: 6il.tr;|,;y;; nvo'H-rri,.r i-6-i7+, linsi'u'stni' R-eonitts' Hvderabad District' Telangana -- 500004. ...PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND 2]' S/o Malikireddv Pedda Hussain 1. Malikireddy lhandra Sekhara Reddy -[A Reddv, Aged sr years]6cc]'[/|o, rt'rids'a'n-ctlstone lnfra lndiaP'rt Ltd ' Fvo Flat 'sit6nge, khanamet. Kondapur, Hyderabad. NO. 808. phcenix_B, rvi"'"il'r'Jiri 2. Smt. Yeruva Srilaxmi tA.3], W/o Malikireddy. Chandrasekhara Re_ddy,.Aged44 - ;;;, -oliIoir".tor''rtili''sr"o.i"n" tntrilnola Pvt' Ltd ' Rvo Flal No 808' 'p"n"JJ"ir:-s,I/"ft lthi'stvrong",Khanamet,Kondapur'Hyderabad .. RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED2&3 3' The state of relangana' Through PS E9)'lvr Team-Vll' ccs' DD' Hyderabad' Rep. by. Public Prosecutor, High Court, HyderaDao' ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 439(2) of Cr'P'C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition' the High Court may ;;;;;;"J1" cancel the naii granteo to th6-res.pondents/A'2 anri 3 bv learned frl"tiopof itrn Sessions JuOgL, ilyderab-ad-in CrI M P'No' 1558 of 2024 in Crime r.r". ioo of 2024 of Eow relm-Vll, ccs, DD, Hyderabad' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crinrinal Petition and upon hearing the arguments'of Sri MAHADEV ANYARAMBHATI.-A, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri SYED YASAR MAMOON, the Aclditional Public Prosecutor for the state of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.3 and of Sri N NAVEEN KUMAR' Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5254 & 6756 of 2o24 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in both the criminal petitions is one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of together by way of this common order.

2. These criminal petitions, frled by the de facto complainant and the Pubiic Prosecutor, respectively, seeking cancellation of the bail granted to respondents/accused Nos.2 and 3 by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No. 1558 of 2024, dated April20,2024.

3. Heard Sri Mahadev Anyarambhatla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr1.P.No.6756 of 2024, Sri Syed yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the petitioner - State in Crl.P.No.5254 of 2024 and Sri N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in both the cases.

4. l,earned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.6756 of 2024 and the Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.P.No.5254 of 2O24 submitted that the trial Court, without examining the 2 SKS,J crl.P.I{o.5254 & 6756 of 2024 merits of tht: case, granted bail to the respondents based on the order in Writ Petition No. 1O276 of 2024, which observed that Secticn 5 of the TSPDFE Act does not apply They further argued that this observation was only a priroa facie hnding, and t.herefore, the order of the trial Court was not in accordance rvith the law. Consequently, the bail granted should be c,alcelied. Hence, they prayed that the Oourt to allow these criminal petitions and cancel the bail granted by the triai CouLrt.

5. On the other hald, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the subject crime, this Court observed in W.P.No.10i276 of 2024 that Section 5 of the Act, 1991) would not be attracted, as the complaint averments did not meet the definitions of Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the Act. The <;ounsel further submitted that, given the stay ald clear observation by this Cor,trt in the writ petition, there are no grc'rtnds to cancel the bail order of the trial Court. Additionally, learned counsel pc,inted out that cancellation of bail requires s;r.rfficient evidence showing non-compliance with bail conditions, which is lacking ir-r this case. Therefore, the counsel prayetl for the dismissal ol the criminal petitions. l I I I t l 3 SKS,J Crl.P.[o.5254 & 6Z56 of 2024

6. Upon consideration of the submissions made by leamed counsel for both parties and a review of the material on record, this Court finds that the order of the trial Court grpnting bail was based od its observation that Section 5 of the TSPDFE Act is not applicable. While the writ petition only made a prima facie observation to this effect, the investigation has been stayed with respect to Section 5 of the TSpDFE Act in the same crime. In light of these circumstances, this Court holds that there are no grounds to interfere with ttre order of the trial court. Consequentiy, these criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed. 7 Accordingly, thbse Criminal petitions are dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed To Sd/- P, CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, EOW TEAM-VII Police Station, CCS, DD, Hyderabad. Hyderabad (OUT)

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to SRl. N NAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Pr/DLv / a HIGH COURT DATED:2810112025 COMMON ORDER GRLP.No.5254 AND 6756 0F 2024 -:gE Sr4 {1 .t 't (r > z o 0 / fiAR zozs D )r't - c t.to * DISMISSING THESE CRL.PETITIONS g .h/ 2(/4/tt