IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.16059 of 2025

17th DAY OF DECEMBER 2025

Between:

Deekonda Harish.

PETITIONER

The State of Telangana,

rep by Public Prosecutor,

Telangana, High Court for the State of

Telangana, at Hyderabad.

RESPONDENT

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No.517 of 2025 before the Chilkalguda Police

Station, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner and the other accused alleging that he had been blackmailed and extorted by certain persons who recorded his private videos and threatened to publish

them unless he paid large sums of money. The complainant claimed to have transferred about Rs.66,00,000/- to the main accused, Mahesh Reddy. During investigation, the police arrested accused No.1 on 04.10.2025, and based on his alleged confession, the name of the petitioner was included in the case.

3. Heard Sri Shashank Garige, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated solely on the basis of the confession of accused No.1, despite there being no specific allegations or evidence linking him to the offence. He further submitted that the entire monetary transactions took place only between the complainant and accused No.1, and that the petitioner neither participated in nor had knowledge of the alleged incident. He contended that the petitioner is suffering from a spinal cord ailment, and there is a genuine apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment. While placing reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Moiz Asgarali Patanwala vs State of Gujrat, Crl Misc App NO.8257 of 2025, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. At this stage, granting of pre- arrest bail to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that there are specific allegations against the petitioner based on the confession of the co-accused, and his role in the alleged offence is yet to be thoroughly investigated. The case involves serious allegations of cheating and extortion, and the investigation is still in progress. That apart, though learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance in the case of Moiz (supra) it is noted that the same does not come to the aid of petitioner in the facts of the case on hand. Granting pre-arrest bail at this stage may hamper the course of investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________

K. SUJANA, J Date : 17.12.2025 PT THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.16059 OF 2025 DATE :17.12.2025 PT