IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.139 of 2026 DATE: 18.03.2026 BETWEEN:

S. Vijay Bharat Reddy …..petitioner/ complainant /accused No.2 And Mahanthi Praneeth and others …..Respondents/complainant

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the docket order dated 12.01.2026 passed in Crime No.1244 of 2025 by the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that accused Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 were produced before the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-V Additional Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar on 12.01.2026 in connection with Crime No.1244 of 2025 of P.S. Cybercrime for the offences punishable under Section 112 BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Gaming Act. The trial Court verified their particulars, recorded that copies were furnished, that there was no ill-treatment, and that the medical reports disclosed no injuries. Observing that the offences were punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and that the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Section 35(3) BNS were not complied with, the trial Court held the grounds of arrest to be unsatisfactory and released the accused on bail on execution of personal bonds with sureties, while directing the Investigating Officer to show cause for non-compliance with the said guidelines. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/accused No.2 filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

3. Heard Sri Naresh Sunkara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachander Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order rejecting remand and releasing the accused on bail was irregular and passed without proper application of mind and that the Investigating Officer had, with malafide intention, falsely arrayed the de facto complainant as accused No.2 and treated him on par with the other accused. He further submitted that the trial Court failed to consider that the respondents were habitual offenders involved in other criminal cases and that the gravity of the offence and material in the case diary warranted remand. He contended that statements of witnesses were recorded under coercion and that contradictory instructions were placed before the High Court in connected quash petitions, thereby misleading the Court. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public submitted that the trial Court had rightly rejected the remand on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Section 35(3) of BNSS, as the offences alleged were punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and the Investigating Officer had failed to record proper reasons for arrest. He contended that the order granting bail was in accordance with law and based on procedural safeguards, and that no illegality or perversity was made out warranting interference in revision. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the respondents/accused were produced before the trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Gaming Act. The said offences are punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to seven years or below. A plain reading of Sections 111 and 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Gaming Act, would indicate that the allegations, as reflected in the remand report, do not prima facie at