##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.12131 of 2026 DATE: 17.08.2026 BETWEEN:

Kandhula Karuna and another.

...Petitioners-Accused Nos.2 and 3 And

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad.

…Respondent No.1-State

2. x x x ...Respondent No.2-Complainant

ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 on bail in connection with Crime No.393 of 2026 of Jangaon Police Station, Warangal District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 296(b), 115(2), 351(2), 108 read with 62 read with 3(5) of BNS.

2. Heard Sri Jithender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent– State and Sri Nimma Narayana for respondent No.2-

Complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as seen from the allegations it is clear that the de facto complainant created a false complaint to extort more money from accused No.1-K.Dasu. As seen from the FIR along with the complaint, it is clear that the allegations made against petitioner No.1- accused No.2 are vague and lacks material particulars which did not attract the sections as alleged in the FIR. Petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested on 27.07.2026 and were produced before the concerned Magistrate for remand. Petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to receive notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, the police without following the mandatory provisions has illegally arrested the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 and produced them before the concerned Magistrate. The concerned Magistrate has mechanically accepted the remand instead of rejecting the remand. Section 69 and 108 of BNS are not attracted to the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 and the other sections which are shown in the remand report are below seven years. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) M.Arjunan v. The State Rep. by its Inspector of Police1; (ii) Allaveni Rajeshwari v. State of A.P2 and (iii)Jangam Ravinder v. The State of A.P, Criminal Appeal No.975 of 2013.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that prosecution has made a request before the concerned Court to record Section 183 of BNSS statement of the victim, which is pending consideration. Investigation is pending and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Respondent No.2-complainant filed counter and contended that accused No.1-K.Dasu and accused No.4- J.Ravi, advocates are absconding and there is reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses who are known to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3. Prejudice would be caused to the complainant if the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are enlarged on bail at the threshold of the investigation, in support of his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Savitri Samson v. State of Karnataka, 2001 AIR-KANT.H.C.R.1706 and prayed to dismiss the petition.

1

Criminal Appeal No.1550 of 2018, Dated 04.12.2018 of the Supreme Court of India.

2 2006(1) ALD page 980

dated 23.09.2023 of the High Court for the State of Telangana.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor during the course of arguments has filed the statements of the witnesses in support of his contention.

7. De facto complainant has lodged a report before Jangaon Police Station, on 24.07.2026, stating that she has obtained mutual consent divorce in the year 2021 from her husband and shifted to Jangaon in the year 2022 to practice as an advocate and joined as a junior in the office of Prasad Rao. During the course of her practice, she got acquaintance with accused No.1-K.Dasu, who is also an advocate working in the same office. On 22.03.2023 when the d