Odepally Mahender 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.2014 of 2026 DATE : 19.02.2026 Between:
Sri Odepally Mahender.
...Petitioner/Accused
AND The State of Telangana Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana Through SHO, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate.
...Respondent
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed before this Court for grant of bail to the Petitioner who is arrayed as accused in FIR No.1919 of 2025 of Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 126(2), 118(1), r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS') and under Section 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2.
The brief facts of the case are that, on 22.12.2025, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that the de-facto complainant, who is the father of the deceased performed the marriage of her daughter with the petitioner in the year 2019 by giving 20 thulas of gold and household articles as dowry. After the marriage, the petitioner and the deceased lived in the petitioner's house for six months, thereafter they resided in a rented house near the petitioner's house. It is further stated that the petitioner is harassing the daughter of the de-facto complainant physically and mentally by assaulting her. In the year 2020, the petitioner and the deceased were blessed with a son, later during the pandemic period, the petitioner again started harassing the deceased physically and mentally.
After being shifted to HMT, Miyapur, the attitude of the petitioner did not change, due to which a case was filed against the petitioner at Neredmet Police Station and the same was compromised in the presence of the elders. On 16.12.2025, the deceased informed the de-facto complainant that the petitioner is beating her for the past three days and had not given food to her. Since then, the deceased is suffering from high fever and suddenly became unconscious, immediately she was being shifted to ECIL OXY hospital for treatment.
21.12.2025, where doctors disclosed that her condition is very serious. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action. Based on the said complaint, the police registered a case against the petitioner for the aforementioned offences. 3.
Heard Sri P. Vikas Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 26.12.2025 and is innocent of the said allegations. It is further submitted that the death of the deceased was not in the house of the petitioner but in the house of the de-facto complainant and there is no such harassment done by the petitioner and all the household articles are with the de-facto complainant only. It is further contended that the material part of investigation is already completed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition. 5.
On the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the alleged offences against the petitioners are grievous and heinous in nature. It is further
contended that due to the harassment of the petitioner herein, the deceased fell sick and died with the said injuries. Accordingly, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
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 petitioner is in jail from 26.12.2025 and as seen from the record LW1to LW18 are examined and averments in the complaint goes to show that the petitioner herein harassed the deceased but there is no such averment in the complaint and that the death of the deceased occurred in the house of the de-facto complainant and not in the house of the petitioner. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the duration of incarceration, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner/accused, subject to the following conditions. i.
The petitioner/accused 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 VIII Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class at Kukatpally.
ii.
The petitioner/accused shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday 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/accused 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 applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 19.02.2026 SRK
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2014 of 2026 Date:19.02.2026 SRK