The High Court · 2025

2. The State of Telanga.ng., Bep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telanganfat Hydeiabid (Through e s. naiuialglri, Riiha[onoil .. . Petitioner/Accused No. 1 ...RespondenUComplainant fetition under Section 483(2) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner in Crl.P.No.1024 of 2025 (common order) dated 05.O2.2025 as the peiitioner is not cooperating in the police investigation as well as not returning the robbed ornaments and documents to the police. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Narendar Jalli, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri C.Sharan Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER :.affiY,z - IN THE HIGH COURT TOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13355 OF 2O25

24.L2.20.25 Between: Challapally Mallikarjuna Rao Kalpana Reddy & another Petitioner/ defact<l complainant And .. Respondent/A. 1. ORDER This criminat petition is filed under Section a83 Ql of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/defacto complainant seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in Cr1.P.No.lO24 of 2025 (common order) dated O5.O2.2O25 to respondent No.1 herein.

2. Heard Sri Narendar Jalli, learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Pubtic Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2- f\, 2 state and sri c.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. I lA.L

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner herein is that defacto complainant had filed w.p. No.45o I of 2o2s, stating that the police had not framed the offence in accordance with the allegations in his complaint and sought directions to modify the offence from section 309(4) of BNS to Sections 310, 62,351(3],,49, and 1rr of BNS. [n response, the porice informed that they had modified the offence to Section 31o of BNS and added cheruvu Srikrishna Murthy as an accused at a later stage. Taking this into account, this court disposed of the writ petition on 05-03.2025. pursuant to the court,s ord.er, the Malkajgiri Police modifred the offence accordingly. However, the anticipatory bail granted earlier was based on the original charge under Section 309(4) of BNS, which was later found to be incorrect. Since the charge now falls under section 31o of BNS, and the accused had not filed a fresh bail application, the order in crl.P.No. ro24 of 2o2s becomes inapplicable. The police, after investigating FIR No.1o25 of 2024, filed a charge sheet in c.c. No.1475 of 2o2s, naming respondent No.1 herein as A.1 alleging that she called A.3, through her driver/A.g, to deliver the robbed property and signed bond papers to her at , I ..-;' . :.:i::. @. l'.titv // , 3 ('t Moulali. Despite obtaining anticipatory bail, respondent No.1 faited to cooperate with the investigation, particularly regarding the seizure of the stolen property, which remains in her possession. This non-cooperation has hindered the 'has violated the investigation. As the respondent No.1 herein conditions of her bail and obstructed recovery of property, the defacto complainant prayed this Court to cancel the bail granted ro A.1 in crl.P.No.lo24 0f 2025.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/A.1 submitted that a charge sheet has been filed in C-C. No. 1475 of 2025 under Section 310 of BNS wherein the section of law was altered from Section 309(4) BNS to Section 310 BNS on 28.02.2025. He contended that mere alteration of the section of law cloes not warrant cancellation of bail. The bail was granted to A.1 in connection with a specific crime, not for a particular offence. Therefore, the accused is not required to file a fresh bail application merely due to the change in the section of law, as there is no such legal requirement. He further argued that no stolen property was recovered from respondent No.l, which supports her claim of innocence and cannot be interpreted as non-cooperation with the investigating agency. Additionally, he submitted that the de facto complainant has no 4 t" legal title over the property situated at H.No. 24-zg, Anand Bagh, Malkajgiri, which actually belongs to one Krishnamurthy, currently residing in the usA. Krishnamurthy has reportedly lodged complaints with the porice via email, alleging illegal occupation and cheating by the de facto complainant. Further, respondent No.1 is not in possession of any signed bond papers and has been falsely implicated in the case due to ongoing propertJr disputes with the de facto complainant. It was also submitted that respondent No.1 has not violated any of the bail conditions. Accordingly, counser prayed for dismissal of the present petition

5. considering the submissions made by both the counser dnd the material on record, this petition is filed on the ground that respondent No.l is not cooperating with the investigating authorit5r in recovery of gold ornaments, whereas rearned Additional Public prosecutor has not filed any application for cancellation of bail instead he submitted that investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. Mere non-recovery of stolen articles is not a ground for cancellation of bail. Except the said allegation there are no specilic allegations to show that respondent No.1 has violated the conditions of bait granted by / / ,:I&BE/ ,,=X I - 5 this court. Therefore, there are no grounds to entertain this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand ! I i I ;i ,i closed Sd/. P. PONNA KRISHNA SISTANT REGIST /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri

2. The Station House Officer, Malkajgiri Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate

3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Narendar Jalli, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri C Sharan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies AI]K /SA HIGH COURT DATED: 2411212025 \ \ ORDER CRLP.No.13355 ot 2025 I I I I { HES () () 0 E iAlt ?t2b 't .,').'- DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION o L q