The High Court · 2025

1. Srinivas Tatipelli, S/o. Sudarshan, Age 54 years, Occ: Business, Ri/o. H.No.C- 46, Narasingapuram, Shetpally, Jaipur, Mancherial.

2. Thatipalli Shobha Rani, Wo.Srinivas, Age 48 years, Occ: House Wife, Rl/o. H.No.C-46, Narasingapuram, Shetpally, Jaipur, Mancherial.

3. Ttatipalli Sai Kumar, S/o. Srinivas, Age 31 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 1-29212, Opp: Power Plant, Main Road, Jaipur, Mancherial.

4. Tatipalli Kavya, W/o. Tatipalli Sai Kumar, Age 30 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. H.No.1-29212, Opp. Power Plant, Main Road, Jalpur, Mancherial.

5. Akkinapelli Swathi, Wo. Rajendra Prasad, Age 37 years, Occ: House Wife, Rl/o. H.No.171 , Jaipur, Mancherial, District.

6. K.Srikala, Age Major, Occ.Civil Supplier, R/o.Jaipur, Mancherial, Dist Mancherial RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to post the Crl.P.No. 1425212025 under the caption " For Being M entioned". This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. V.Jithender Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the petitioner and Sri K. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Respondents 1 to 5 and none app-.rred for Respondent no.6. l.A. NO: 4 OF 2025 Between: 'l . Srinivas Tatipelli, S/o.Sudarshan, Age 54 years, Occ: Eirsiness, Rl/o. H.No.C- 46, Narasingapuram, Shetpally, Jaipur, Mancherial.

2. Thatipalli Shobha Rani, W/o. Srinivas, Age 48 years, (li;c: House Wife, R/o. H.No. C-46, Narasingapuram, Shetpally, Jaipur, Manch,-. ial.

3. Ttatipalli Sai Kumar, S/o.Srinivas, Age 3'l years, Occ :]usiness, R:/o. H.No. 1-29212, Opp. Power Plant, Main Road, Jaipur, Manche-i,rl

4. Tatipalli Kavya, W/o. Tatipalli Sai Kumar, Age 30 yezrr:i, Occ. House Wife, R/o. H.No.'1-29212,Opp Power Plant, Main Road, Jaipr-r Mancherial.

5. Akkinapelli Swathi, W/o.Rajendra Prasad, Age 37 ye:rr,;, Occ: House Wife, Rl/o. H.No.171, Jaipur, Mancherial, Dist. Ivlancherial. ...PETITIONER/,1:CUSED .1 TO 4 & 6 AND

1. The State of Telangana, through SHO PS Jaipur, Rep ry Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana.

2. K.Srikala, Age Major, Occ: Civil Supplier, Ri/o. fvtancherial JaiP,t r, Y"n"6erial, Dist ...RESPONDENT/DEFA( TO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that r the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, ttrr: High Court may be pleased to extend the date of appearance of the petitioner tnln 25111120255 up Io 2511212025 or any other appropriate dated in CRLP NO. 1421i of 2025. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing t re l,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argume r ts of Sri KONDADI AJAY KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Pubtic Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 anrl None appeared for Respondent no.2. The Court made the following: ORDER This Court on 04.'1 '1 .2025 disposed of the Criminal petit r n No.14252 of ZOZS directing the petitioners/A'l to A4 and 46 to appear before thr: lnvestigating Officer on or before 25,11.2025 between 1'1-00 a.m. and 5-00 p.r,t. and in turn, the lnvestigatrng Officer is directed to follow the procedure laid ,:own under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Biharl scrupulously. l.A.No.4 of 2025 has been filed to extend the time for appearance of the petitioners/A'l to A4 and 46 before the lnvestigating Officer. Whereas respondent No.'l-State filed I.A.No.3 of 2025 to post the matter under lhe caption "For Being Mentioned" on the ground that the offence levelled against the petitioners/Al to 44 and A6 shall be punished with imprisonment above seven years and the petitioners/Al to 44 and 46 are not entitled to the benefit of Section 35(3) of the BNSS. Heard Mr.V.Jithender Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the petitioner-State in l.A.No.3 of 2025 and respondent No.1-State in l.A.No.4 of 2025 and Mr. K.Ajay Kumar, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 in l.A.No.3 oI 2025 and petitioners in l.A.No.4 ol 2025. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that crime No.207 of 2025 of Jaipur Police Station, Ramagundam District was registered against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 316(5), 318(4) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the EC Act') and Sections 66C, 66D and 65 of the lnformation Technology Act, 2000-2008. The offence under Section 316(5) of BNS shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for up to 10 years, and a fine. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. Hence, the order is required modification. Learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 submitted that the lnvestigating Officer had already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS against the other three accused and the very same allegations are levelled against accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 and this Court granted anticipatory bail in respect of three other accused. Accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and also abide by the conditions, which are imposed by this Court while disposing the Criminal Petition No.14252 of 2O25. He further submitterl that unless this Court extends the time for their appearance before the lnvestige ling Officer, accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 will be put to great hardship. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not disputed tlre said submission. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the rr:spective parties, this Court is not inclined to modify the order, dated 04.1 1.2025,1)i)ssed by this Court in Crl.P.No.14252 of 2025 on the ground that though the offenc: under Section 316(5) of the BNS shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imp sonment for up to 10 years, and a fine, the lnvestigating Officer has already issueC notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to three other accused, against whom the /ery same allegations are levelled. According to the learned counsel for the parties .,ery same allegations are levelled against the present petitioners/A'l to A4 and 46. ln view of the averments made in l.A.No.4 of 2025, timo lor appearance of the petitioners/A1 to 44 and A6 is extended and they are directel to appear before the lnvestigating Officer on or before 16.12.2025. The remaining c,tnditions imposed by this Court are unaltered Accordingly, both the applications are disposed of. s 4SSl D/. MOHD. ISMAIL STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//. .SECTION OFFICER To PR

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Thungathurthy 2. The Station House Officer, Jaipur Police Station, Suryap r t District. 3. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court for the jtate of Telangana at Hyderabad. Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the stat ,r of Jsls6gsn2, 31 5. One CC to SRl. K. AJAY KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies H 1t 0i[ itr?t (' () ;!."-' a /t {l O (_) ( HIGH COURT JSR,J DATED:0 811212025 ORDER l.A.NOs.3 AND 4 OF 2025 IN CRLP.No.14252 ot 2025 DIRECTION q