The State Of Telangana v. Jagari Aniruth

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.895 of 2026 DATE: 10.04.2026 Between:

The State of Telangana Through the Station House Officer, Adavi Mutharam P.S., Jayshakar Bhupalpally District, The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Sate of Telangana, Hyderabad - 500066 .... Petitioner/Respondent AND Jagari Aniruth .... Respondent/Accused

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the prosecution seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent/accused by order dated 21.03.2025 in Crl.P.No.3510 of 2025. The offences alleged against the respondent are punishable under Section 108 of BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that one Korra Satyam, father of the deceased, lodged a complaint on 04.03.2025 stating that his daughter, Sindhuja, who was studying Intermediate at Hanamkonda, had come home on 26.02.2025 and informed him that one J. Aniruth was harassing her physically and mentally through phone calls. Unable to bear the harassment, she allegedly consumed poison and died on 04.03.2025. Based on the said complaint, a case was initially registered for the offence punishable under Section 194 of BNSS and was subsequently altered to the aforementioned offences. 3.

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor representing the petitioner-State and the learned counsel for the respondentaccused. 4.

Learned Public Prosecutor contends that this Court, by order dated 21.03.2025 in Crl.P.No. 3510 of 2025, granted anticipatory bail to the respondent with a direction to surrender before the Station House Officer, Adavi Mutharam Police Station, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District, and execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties. However, as of today, the respondent has neither surrendered before the Investigating Officer nor furnished sureties, thereby

failing to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent.

5.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent filed a counter affidavit opposing the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor by contended that pursuant to the grant of anticipatory bail, the respondent approached the concerned Station House Officer on 24.03.2025 along with a copy of the Court order. However, the SHO allegedly refused to accept the sureties or acknowledge the order and instead advised the respondent to settle the matter with the de facto complainant by paying compensation for the death of the complainant's daughter. He further submitted that even now, the respondent is ready and willing to appear before the police, surrender, and furnish the required sureties. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6.

Having considered the submissions made by both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court deems it fit to direct the respondent to appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and furnish the sureties as

directed by this Court in Crl.P.No.3510 of 2025. The respondent shall also cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. 7.

With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 10.04.2026 SS

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.895 of 2026 Date: 10.04.2026 SS