The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing ne [t/emorandum of Grounds of Crim nal Petition and upon hearing the argumer is of Sri Gundlapalli V S S Sruthi ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt Shalin; :i rxena, the Assistant Publrc Prosecuto: for the State of Telangana on behalf of th: Respondent No. 1 The Court made the following: ORDER w ,/ ,/ THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 12453 of2o25 ORDER: The present Crrminal Petilion is hled by the petitioner lor cancellation of bail gran tecl by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.427 of 2O2i> in Crime No.60 of 2025, rvherein the allegations are for thc offences punishaLblc under Sections 191(2), 191(s), 103(1), to9(2),6t(2'j of BNS r/u' Section 190 o[ BNS.

2. Heard Smt. G.V.S.S. Sruthi, learned counsel lor petitioner as well as Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on bchalf of the respondent No. 1 State-

3. Learned cotrnsel for the petitior-rer submitted that on

29.06.2025, the de-facto complainant Iodged a report before the police agarnst accused Nos.l to 8, who were responsible for the murder of the deceased and also attempted to commit murder of one Kurma Rame sh by beating with deadly weapons and thereafter, the invcstigation was conducted and \ 2 "\ arrested all the accused and lhey filed Crl.M.P.No.1 ).7 <;t 2025 for grant of bail and the trial Court \.t'ithottt as j gning an1' reasons, wrthin 15 days of the remand, granted b r Ito all the accusecl, on the ground that statements of eyclri'r cSS'-lS anCI inlured rverc :rlso recorded excepl receipt of FSL 'cporL and thc investigation was already completed. ll is rirrther subrni[ted tllat, after release from jail, accused l'],r I not onll' threatened ihe de facto complainant and rvi'r csscs, hc attempted to murder of one of the injured i.e. Str

11. Kurma Manemma ancl she also lodged a report before tlrr: police and the police also registered a case against accuse I No.i and q,hich was also published in the news that ar'. rsed No. I atte mpted to murder the de-facto complainan t ar-rd other injured persons and the accused were grantecL 1 ail. It is lurther subinitt.ed that there is a lhreat to t:: : de facto complainant and witnesses and therefore, she I rar.,:cl thc Court to cancel the bail granted by the trial Court.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the t t spondents submitted that, except accused Nos.1 to 3 ancl . i t en Laining accused No.4 is aged about 74 years and accusec Nos.6 to 8 are women zrnd the only allegation against these tccused is l. 3 that they misbehaved rvith the de-facto complainant and other witnesses and the accused Nos.6 to 8 arc innocent of the allegations leveled againsl them. It is lurther submittcd that, even in the present casc, there are no allegations against these accused. Therefore, he prayed thc Court to dismiss the criminal petition against accused Nos.4 and 6 to 8-

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that prosecution also has filed cancellation of bail petition, which is under the process and they t ill also take steps for cancellation of the bail. It is further submitted that the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the police and basing on the same, the police registcred a case against accused No. 1, who attempted to murder the de facto complainant.

6. In the light of the submissions made by the respective counsels and upon perusal of the material avaiiable on record, the trial Court has not assigned any reasons while granting bail and simply stated that the investigation is completed and granted bail to accused Nos.l to 8. In the following Judgments the Hon'lcle Apex Court observed that whiie \ [. 'I \ 4 e3 granling bail reasons must be assigned i.e. I. lL ahepal o. Rajesh Kumart, 2. Sunil Kumar a. State of ) lihar2, 3. Kamala Deui u. Strr.te of Rajasthan3, 4. Aaio, :n Deti u. Pappu Kumay', 5- Ms. Y. u. Stdte of Raja.sthan:. There are no reasons assigned by the trial Court while gr:rr r ng b:ril to accused Nos.l to 8 in a grave offence. Considerin I the facts and circumsLtrnces of the case, this Criminal Petrt rr n is partly allori,ed i:ancelli,-rg the bail of accused No. 1 to .l .nd 5 and dismissed the criminal petition for accuscd No.4 by considering the i.rge of the accused and aiso for acr:r Lsed Nos.6 to 8, lvho are women and further, accused Nos. l c 3 ancl 5 are at liber[.. to file fresh bail petition at appropriat. r l inre and further, t he le:rrncd trial Court is directed to ass I n reasons whilc granting bail petitions in future. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, s eall sland ciosed il8 2+5 L(;D?r) a scc '(-lo zt-2 3 scc 3&-oea) 6 scc qt2n24 4 se r2p27 livelaw [sOzsq 1e6 1s7 //TRUE COPY// 'I\ SD/. C. DEEPIKA !; STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The IV Additional Session Judge, Sanga Reddy 2. The Station House Officer, Sirgapur Police Station, Sarg areddy 3. Two CCs to lhe Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telan<yr na, Hyderabad 4 One CC to Sri. Gundlapalli V S S SRUTHI Advocate [O ,UCl 5. Two CD Ccpies (our) I tts/sa HIGH COURT DATED:2511012025 a_ 9 a: O tr- t& $' \ \ a( a.<; lcrr.t { ORDER CRLP.No.12463 of 2025 iEi;) \.. .s 't I.r. \\ +il t1Ol l:t -:. I CRIMINAL PETITION IS PARTLY ALLO'Y /ED e\ tt I