IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.135 OF 2026 DATE : 17.02.2026 Between :

Kagula Ramulu … Appellant/A.8 And The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Through SHO Police Station Shadnagar, Cyberabad Commissionerate & another … Complainant/Respondent : JUDGMENT :

This Criminal appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the appellant praying this Court to set aside the order dated 09.01.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2798 of 2025 and enlarge the appellant on bail who is accused No.8 in Crime No.1135 of 2025 of Shadnagar Police Station, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against the appellant are under Section

61(2) r/w.190 of BNS and Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act.

2. Heard Sri L.Bhargava Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Sri S.M.Rizwan Akhtar, learned counsel appearing for the victim.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial Court failed to consider the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant herein is arrayed as A.8 and he is no way connected with the alleged offence and he is falsely implicated in this case stating that the appellant herein has also aided for the said offence. The appellant herein is 72 years old and he is in jail from 17.11.2025 and the entire investigation is already completed and charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, requested this Court to grant regular bail.

4. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the alleged offence is an honor killing and SC/ST Act is also involved in this case. Solely basing on the caste discrimination, the deceased was killed by the accused. Therefore, it is a heinous and grave offence, as such, the appellant is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this appeal.

5. The victim who is the father of the deceased filed counter opposing bail on the ground that appellant is also a main conspirator in the alleged offence. A.1 to A.8 conspired with each other and killed the deceased. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment in Kewal Krishan Kumar V Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC Online Del 1547, Vikas Yadav V State of U.P, (2016) 9 SCC 541 Gudur Sandeep Reddy & Others V State of Telangana3. He further contended that in view of the severity of allegations and as there is threat to the protection of victims in this case, and to the daughter of A.1 who is the wife of brother of deceased and grand-daughter of the appellant herein, the appellant is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this appeal.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the material on record, it is seen that the appellant herein is arrayed as A.8 and the allegations against him according to the remand report is that after committing the offence, A.1 called the appellant herein who is his son and they all conspired to do away with the life of deceased. However, the appellant herein is aged about 72 years and he is in jail from 17.11.2025 and learned Additional Public

3 (2021) 1 ALT (Cri) 18

Prosecutor filed documents showing that charge sheet is already filed. Considering the allegations against the appellant and also the period of his incarceration in jail and completion of investigation, this Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the appellant subject to the following conditions.

i. The appellant /A.8 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

ii. The appellant/A.8 sha