Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 8562
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B R MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 276 OF 2026
Appeal under Section 21 of f{lA Act R/w 528 of BftSS aggrieved by the order dated 121Q312026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.470 of 2026 in Crl.M.P.No.443 of 2026 in RC4|202'|N!NHYD on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
Between:
Gade lnnaiah @ Gade lnna Reddy, S/o Salomon Reddy, Age: 64 years, R/o H. No. 3-71lB, Regadi Thanda Village, Occ: Social activist, Zaffergadh Mandal, Jangaon District, Telangana....Appellant/Accused No.1
AND
The State- Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, National lnvestigation Agency, Hyderabad Ministry of Home Affairs....Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Akhil Ennam Shetty, counsel representing Smt. Rajitha Kamatam
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri P Vishnuvardhana Reddy Spl PP For NIA
SD/. B SATYAVATHI, JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
2' 1 3 . . . T T T H h h h y e e e i l ; S V # D u A ; p e , d ' e p r d r t u i i l n t t t io t y i e " n n i S a " d l i u e w S p n e e t s r o o i s n r f i o t i e P o n n s o m d li J e c " u e n a d ' t g t C r o e h ' i f a t" N n ( P a c B h m o v a l p l i g s c a u p e ll c e y ' i ' c a N H i a C a y l d t e i M e o n r t n e a r s a a b s l a l e P d l n n r g v is e e o r s ) n t ' i g H a y t d io e n ra A b g a e d n ( c B y y 'Special Messenger)
4 5 . . O O n n e e C C C C t t o o S S M Rl T . . P K V A I M S A H T N A U M V A R R A D J H IT A H N A A ' A R d E v D oc D a Y te ' S [O P P L U P C P I FOR NIA' [OPUC]
6- 7 . . T f T h tf e h in S e i. t i a r C y t i o o o m n f H H m o o i m s u s e s i o e A n O f e f f a r f i i r c o s e ( f B r , y P P S S o p - li - e c N c e . i ' { a l B l o Mn a a s e h lsln e sv e een rb sg a tei g gr; h a ' t io H n y A ci g e e ra n b c a y d 'H ( y B d y er a S b p a e d c ' ial C"H-'-Massanoerl I I T M T w h e o e s s C D e D i n re g C c e t o o r p ) r i e G s enerat of police, Khairatabad, Hyderabac 500004 (By Special Messenger)
ba tu\Ii
HIGH COURT DATED: 131031202G )s1Hts14 JUDGMENT U o v 1 3 !'!AB 7t26 b p C z t J CRLA.No.276 ot 2026 I I ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL K-s tzl,f-e
The Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
1. Heard Sri Akhil Ennam Shetty, learned counsc represenring Smt.Rajitha Kamatam, learned counsel for the appi: Iant and Sri P.Vishnu Vardhana Reddy, leamed Special PP for NLA rppcaling lor the respondent.
2. This appeal IS preferred under Section 2l of National Investigation Agency Act read with Section 528 of BNS; , challenging the order dated 12.03.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.47t ol 2026 in Crl.M.P.No.443 of 2026 in R.C.No.04 of 2025NIA/, \'D of P.S., KL,J & BRMR,J Cd.A. No 276 of2026 National Investigation Agency, Hyderabad, passed by the leamed IV Additionat Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
3. The appellant herein is accused No. t in the aforesaid crime. He has filed a petition vide Crl.M.p.No.443 of 2026 in the said crime seeking interim bail for a period from 04.03.2026 to 15.03.2026 on the ground that his father expired on 28.02.2026 and he has to perform final rites and also rituals and customary ceremonies of his father.
4. Vide order dated 06.03.2026, leamed. Designated Court granted interim bail to the appellant herein fi.om 09.03.2026 to 12.03.2026 on imposition of certain conditions.
5. The appellant has filed an applicarion vrde Crl.Mp.No.470 of 2026 in Crl.M.P.No.443 of 2026 seeking extension of the said orders dated 06.03.2026 and also a further direction to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, to further extend the interim bail (custody parole) ttll 14.03.2026 and remand back the appellant to the Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad contending that as per his family customary practices, the famity will offer daily Requiem Mass at the Church and the Rite of Committal at the graveyard for the heavenly abode ofthe departed soul till l3th or l6,h (' J (]':r .AJ & N B o R 2 M 76 R o .J f2026 day after death. The appellant,s family scheduled tl rse day rvise prayers as follows:
"5th day (04.03.2026;), 7,h day (06. t3.2026), 9'h day (08.03.2026), [,h day (10 | 3.2026), l3'h day (12.03.2026), 15'h day (t4.03.2026), Req,; srn N4.. at Sagaram Church followed by Committal S rvice at Graveyard."
6. It is further contended that on 15,h day i.e., 14.03.11 )26, the sons and close male kin will perform the traditional tonsure head shave) followed by Requiem Mass and after that alr the famity, fi-ie.ds and relatives will proceed to the graveyard for the lighti,1] of candlcs, incense, and the sprinkling of Hoty Water, concluding u th a flower tribute to honor the heavenly abode of the departed so_r . A special blessing by the Parish Priest to the photographs ofthe de::ased in the presence of all the family members. Without considerin . the same, vide order dated 06.03.2026, leamed Designated Court grirr ted interinr bail to the appellant herein for a period from 08. t3.2026 to 12.03.2026. Therefore, the appellant sought extension o1 bail. The same was dismissed by the learned Designated Court vide rrder dated12.03.2026. Therefore, the appellant preferred the presenr I rpeal.
CKtr-l,.JA &N B o R 2 M 76 R .oJf2026
7. Whereas, Sri P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned Special pp for NIA vehemently opposes the appeal contending that in the earlier round of litigation, the appellant contended that 9th, l0'h, ll'r'and l3'h day ceremonies are there and the appeltant has to perfonn such ceremonies and the l3s day ceremony is on 12.03.2026. Contrary to the said pleadings, the appellant is now seeking interim bail on 14.03.2026. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order, the leamed Designated Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant.
8. As discussed supra, the appellant in his application i.e., in Crl.M.P.No.443 of 2026 specifically contended that with regard to the performance of l5th day cerernony on 14.03.2026 and the rituals to perform on the said date infact, are not considered by the learned Designated Court. The appellant also filed
