IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1571 of 2026 DATE: 16.03.2026 BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad …..petitioner/respondent And Bathini Santhosh …..Respondent/accused

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to cancel the bail granted to the respondent/accused passed by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2025 in Crl.P.No.14104 of 2025.

2. Heard Sri Palle Nageswar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State as well as Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - accused.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after obtaining bail, the respondent violated the conditions of bail by intimidating and harassing a key witness, namely L.W.6, who is related to the deceased. He further submitted that based on the complaint of the said witness, a fresh case in Crime No.33 of 2026 was registered for the offences under Sections 292 and 351(2) of BNS, and during investigation the statements of witnesses revealed that the respondent was threatening the witnesses connected with the murder case. He contended that the respondent is also involved in other criminal cases and a rowdy sheet is being maintained against him, and if he is allowed to remain on bail, there is every likelihood that he would threaten or harm the complainant and witnesses, thereby interfering with the course of justice. Therefore, he prayed the Court to cancel the bail granted to the respondent - accused by allowing this Criminal Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent filed counter affidavit denying averments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor stating that the allegations made in the present petition are false and are based solely on the registration of a subsequent FIR in Crime No.33 of 2026, which is still under investigation and whose truth will be determined only during trial. He further submitted that the said FIR does not disclose any specific threat or attempt by the respondent to influence the witness in connection with Crime No.454 of 2024 and therefore cannot be treated as a violation of the bail conditions. He contended that the alleged incidents are stated to have occurred in public places where CCTV cameras are available, and if the allegations were true, the prosecution could have produced such evidence.

5. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in X v. State of Telangana1, wherein the Court reiterated the well-settled principles governing cancellation of bail. He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while referring to the earlier

1 (2018) 16 SCC 511

decision in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349, held that rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail already granted stand on different footings, and that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are required for cancellation of bail. It was further held that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless there is material to show interference with the due course of justice, attempt to evade the process of law, or abuse of the liberty granted. He further placed reliance on the decision in CBI v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan, (2011) 5 SCC 296, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that cancellation of bail can be justified only when there are strong and compelling reasons demonstrating misuse of liberty by the accused. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the principal contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that, after being enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.14104 of 2025, the respondent–accused violated the conditions imposed while granting bail. It is specifically

alleged that