SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 39147

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
Thirupathi Nithin Vardhan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP 13810/2025



THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13810 OF 2025

ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/A.4 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.185 of 2024 of Karimnagar Rural Police Station, Karimnagar District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 120B, 386, 467, 468, 471 and 506 r/w.34 of Indian penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint on 26.03.2024 stating that A.1 to A.3 cheated him, threatened him and extorted an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. A.1 and A.4 also demanded Rs.15 Lakhs. On 23.03.2024 A.1 and A.4 also went to the house of complainant and threatened him with dire consequences. As such requested the police to take necessary action against the accused basing on which the police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri N.Hari Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner herein is A.4 and he is innocent of the said allegations. The main allegations are against A.1 to A.3 only, as such, custodial interrogation of this petitioner is not necessary. A.1 to A.3 in this case are already granted regular bail. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground that the main allegations are against A.4 and there are 11 crimes pending against this petitioner. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, the petitioner herein is involved in 11 crimes wherein in four crimes there is offence under Section 307 of IPC from 2017 to 2023. Considering the criminal history and the allegations against the petitioner in the present case, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________

K. SUJANA, J Date : 31.10.2025

Rds

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top