IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.18001 OF 2025

19.01.2026 Between :

Madaka @ Masala Varshit Kumar @ Bunty & another … Petitioners/A.1 & A.6 And The State of Telangana, Through SHO, P.S.Karimnagar-III Town, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana … Respondent : ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioners/A.1 and A.6 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with F.I.R.No.107 of 2025of Karimnagar III-Town Police Station, Karimnagar District. The offences alleged against the petitionersare under Sections 61(2), 189(3), 329(3), 324(3), 308(5), and 351(2) r/w.190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. On 29.03.2025, the complainant reported to the police that in 1993, his father purchased Ac.0.23 guntas of land from Bejjanki Kondaiah in Survey No. 100 at Durgammagadda, Karimnagar. In the same year, he also purchased 277.12 square yards from Bolusani Sujatha, registered the property, and took possession. He built a compound wall, installed a gate, constructed four tin-roofed sheds, and obtained municipal house numbers 6-3-20/1/1 to 6-3-20/1/1/C. He regularly paid house tax and shared ownership with his sister, Bangaru Rajani. A watchman, Bandam Veeresham, lived in one shed with his family. CCTV cameras were installed around the property, with a DVR kept in a storeroom. Recently, Lingampally Narayana, claiming to be the legal heir of Gadapa Parvathalu, attempted to illegally occupy the land, asserting ownership of Ac.1.21 guntas. However, Gadapa Parvathalu had sold the land to Vali Mohammad in 1991, who later sold part of it to Bejjanki Kondaiah, from whom the complainant’s father purchased it. On 29.03.2025 at 5:30 AM, Narayana and several others came with a JCB, broke the gate and compound wall, threatened the watchman’s family, set up a tent, and destroyed the CCTV cameras. When they tried to take the DVR, the watchman’s son, Uday, resisted but he was threatened and forced to hand it over. The said incident was narrated by the watchman and, upon visiting the site with his wife, found the property damaged and suffered significant loss. Hence, he requested the police to take severe action against the accused, basing on which, police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Penuballi Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-

State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Accused No.1 is not present in the scene of offence. The police without conducting preliminary enquiry straight away registered the FIR showing the petitioners as accused. He further contended that the complainant did not specify the role of A.1 in his complaint but only mentioned his name stating that he has intention to grab the land. A.1 is not involved in any other crime and wrongly implicated in Cr.No.437 of 2025 of Karimnagar I-Town Police Station. He also contended that A.6 is also not present in the scene of offence and has nothing to do with these allegations. The entire allegations are of civil in nature which was given cloak of criminality to attract the provisions of BNS. It is further contended that as of now nothing is recovered from the petitioners. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the petitioners are actively involved in the offence and investigation is still in progress. The petitioners are also involved in other crimes and they are having criminal history. He further contended that the role of each accused came into light during the course of investigation. Though the petitioners are not present in the scene of offence, they conspired with other accused