Mamidipelli Sandeep, v. The State Of Telangana,
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.452 of 2026 DATE: 22.01.2026 Between:
Mamidipelli Sandeep .... Petitioner/A-1 AND The State of Telangana, Through the Station House Officer, Chikkadpally Police Station, Hyderabad City Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.
.... Respondent
O R D E R
This criminal petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner/Accused No.1 seeking enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No.322 of 2025 of Chikkadpally Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 78(2), 64(2)(m) and 351(3) read with 3(5) of BNS.
- 2 - 2.
The brief facts of the case are that, the de-facto complainant lodged a report with the police stating that the petitioner became acquainted with the accused in the year 2014 and, from 2014 to 2021, continuously exploited her physically despite her resistance. It was further alleged that his family members encouraged these acts. The complainant also stated that the petitioner exploited many other women and therefore requested the police to take necessary action. Based on this complaint, the police registered a case against the petitioner for the said offences 3.
Heard Sri P. Vikasraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
4.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations and has been falsely implicated in the case by the de-facto complainant solely with the intention of harassing the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 27.11.2025 and that the material part of the investigation has already been completed, including the recording of the statement under Section 183 of the BNSS. Hence, prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner.
- 3 - 5.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the allegations are grave in nature and that, apart from the de facto complainant, several other innocent girls were physically exploited by the petitioner. He further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage may result in tampering with evidence and threatening witnesses. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 6.
In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it is noted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 27.11.2025. As per the remand case diary, prosecution witnesses L.Ws.1 to 20, including the investigating officer, have already been examined. Taking into account the overall facts, the stage of investigation, and the period of incarceration, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: i.
The petitioner 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 learned IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad.
- 4 - ii.
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday and Friday for a period of eight (8) week or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.
iii.
The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
(presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).
7.
Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 22.01.2026 SS
- 5 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.452 OF 2026 DATE : 22.01.2026 SS