Kamalla Shivakumar, 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.2090 OF 2026 DATE : 06.03.2026 Between :
Kamalla Shiva Kumar ...
Petitioner/Accused And The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Courtfor the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, Through its S.H.O, P.S. Urkonda, Nagarkurnool District ... Respondent/Complainant : ORDER :
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, by the petitioner/Accused seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.23 of 2026 of Urkonda Police Station, Nagarkurnool District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections318 (4), 316(2), 316(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 66-D of Information Technology Act.
- 2 - 2.
The facts of the case are that on04.02.2026 at 12:00 hours, the complainant, Sri Yousuf Ali, working as Tahsildar, Urkonda Mandal, gave a complaint to the police stating that during verification of online registration transactions of patta lands in various villages of Urkonda Mandal, serious financial irregularities were detected. As per the information received from the District Collector's Office, Nagarkurnool, Government funds were misappropriated in the online slot booking process. On scrutiny of registration documents, e-challans, BC/Pay Orders, and SBI e-PAY details, it was found that out of Rs.4,78,388/- payable to the Government exchequer, only Rs.40,053/- was remitted, and the remaining amount of Rs.4,38,335/- was misappropriated by exploiting technical glitches in the Bhu-Bharati software and electronic devices.
The irregularities were allegedly committed by Sri Kamalla Shiva Kumar, Mee-Seva Operator of Sri Chilukuri Balaji Mee-Seva Centre, Urkonda, who collected Stamp Duty, Transfer Duty, Registration Fee, and User Charges from the public but failed to remit the full amount to the Government, thereby committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, and misappropriation of Government funds. Hence requested for necessary action.
- 3 - Basing on the said complaint, police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.
3.
Heard Sri Gurram Venkat Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondentState. 4.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations made against the petitioner are false, fabricated, and foisted with an intention to harass him. The petitioner is innocent and had not committed any offence, and he was wrongly implicated in this case. It is submitted that the petitioner is working as an employee at Chilukuri Balaji MeeSeva Centre, Urkonda, and had no private interest in the alleged transactions.
The dispute related to the alleged misappropriation of Rs.4,38,335/- out of Rs.4,78,388/- in patta land registrations, which, according to the petitioner, occurred due to technical glitches in the Bhu-Bharati software. He further contended that petitioner had collected and remitted the amounts as per procedure without any dishonest intention. The counsel further submitted that the very same issue had earlier been reported by the MRO, Jangaon, resulting in registration of Crime No.10 of 2026 at PS Jangaon, in which the petitioner was
- 4 - arrayed as accused No.10, arrested on 16.01.2026, and later released on regular bail on 13.02.2026, and he had complied with all bail conditions without absconding or tampering with evidence. Despite the earlier investigation covering all relevant documents, e-challans, and SBI records, a repetitive complaint was lodged on identical facts, and the police were again threatening arrest, which amounted to abuse of process of law and double jeopardy. It is also submitted that the petitioner was only a worker in the Mee-Seva Centre, who collected registration documents and stamp duty from landowners and facilitated online payments through mediators, and therefore prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed for grant of anticipatory bail contending that petitioner is also involved in another case, i.e., Crime No.10 of 2026 of Jangaon Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 316(2), 338, 337, 336(3), 340(2) of the BNS and Section 66-D of the IT Act. It is further contended that the petitioner, who is running a Mee-Seva Centre, used to book online slots for property registrations and collect the required amounts from intending purchasers. During the process of uploading and remitting the amounts, he allegedly manipulated the system by
- 5 - using his technical skills and remitted only minimal amounts to the Government account, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government exchequer. The learned APP argued that the petitioner played a key role in the commission of offence and that his custodial interrogationis necessary to ascertain the manner in which the software was manipulated and the amounts were misappropriated. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.
6.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is noted that the petitioner is arrayed as an accused on the allegation that, while running a Mee-Seva Centre, he facilitated the commission of offence by sending documents relating to Amangal, Thalakondapalli, and Urkonda for online payment after remittance of challan amounts, allegedly at the instance of other accused. In the present case, the complaint was lodged by the Tahsildar, Urkonda, against two Mee-Seva Operators, and the present crime was registered on 04.02.2026 at Urkonda Police Station. On the date of registration of the present crime, the petitioner was already in judicial custody in connection with Crime No.10 of 2026 of Jangaon Police Station on similar allegations. Despite the petitioner being in custody at that time,
- 6 - no steps were taken to regularize his arrest in the present crime. After his release on bail in another case, the petitioner filed the present anticipatory bail application, which is opposed by the prosecution on the ground that the allegations are serious in nature. It is observed that the allegations in both crimes are substantially similar, though the complainants are different, one being the Tahsildar of Jangaon and the other Tahsildar of Urkonda. In view of the similarity of allegations and the fact that the petitioner was already in custody at the time of registration of the present crime and his arrest was not regularized, this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions : i.
The petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Urkonda Police Station, Nagarkurnool District within two weeks from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release the petitioner on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, for the like sum each.
ii.
The petitioner/Accused shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 05.00 p.m., on every Wednesday for a period of eight (8) weeks, for the purpose of investigation or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier and thereafter, as and when required.
- 7 - iii.
The petitioner/Accused shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482 (2) ofBNSS and co-operate with the InvestigatingOfficer in investigating the case. 7.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :06.03.2026 Rds
- 8 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2090 OF 2026 DATE :06.03.2026 Rds