Garvandha Sandhya v. State Of Telangana Through S.H.O. Of Jagitial Rural, Jagitial District,
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2209 and 2214 of 2026 DATE: 25.02.2026 Crl.P.No.2209 of 2026 Between:
Garvandha Sandhya and another
...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2
AND The State of Telangana, Through SHO of Jagitial Rural, Jagitial District, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.
.... Respondent/Complainant Crl.P.No.2214 of 2026 Between:
Garvandha Naresh
...Petitioner/Accused No.3
AND The State of Telangana, Through SHO of Jagitial Rural, Jagitial District, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.
.... Respondent/Complainant
- 2 - COMMON ORDER These Criminal Petitions are filed before this Court for grant of bail to the Petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in FIR No.502 of 2025 of Jagitial Rural Police Station, Jagitial District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61 r/w 3(5) of the BNS. 2.
The case of the prosecution is that, on 27.12.2025, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that, on 27.12.2025, the complainant villager came to the house of the complainant and informed that some unknown persons have attacked the complainant son at Laxmipur village of Jagitial District and he was died with severe head injuries while shifting to Govt. Hospital at Jagitial by 108 Ambulance. Further, he informed that his son dead body was kept in Mortuary of Govt. Hospital at Jagitial. On knowing that information, he made a phone call to his daughter-in-law and asked about the incidence, then she said that on 26.12.2025 her husband went outside by telling that he is going to outside. Later the complainant and his relatives rushed to the Hospital at Jagitial and found his son dead
- 3 - body with severe head injuries caused by stick or iron rod. Later, the complainant came to know that accused Nos.1 and 6 hatched a plan to kill the deceased by beating him indiscriminately. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case for the above said offences. Later, on investigation, they came to know that the deceased herein had made a false promise to accused No.6 stating that he is an unmarried person and both were started talking frequently. Thereafter, A.6 came to know that deceased is a married person and when she avoided the deceased, the deceased threatened her that if she married someone else, he would circulate the photos taken with her. Later, accused Nos.1 and 6 hatched a plan to kill the deceased and A.1 is the sister of A.6 and A.2 is the son of A.1.
3.
Heard Sri P. Giri Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the said allegations and there is no
- 4 - eye witness to the said incident, which was not stated by the de-facto complainant and later, the police examined Lw.6 as an eye witness only to implicate the petitioners herein in this case and they are in jail since 28.12.2025 and the material part of the investigation was already completed. Further, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to them by allowing these criminal petitions.
5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the allegations against the petitioners herein are serious in nature. Further, the investigation is not yet completed. At this stage, they are not entitled for the bail. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petitions.
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 petitioners herein is in jail since 28.12.2025. As seen from the remand case diary, the prosecution witnesses, LWs 1 to 17 have already been
- 5 - examined and PME report is also received by the investigating authority. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, the duration of incarceration, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
i.
The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Principal JCJ Cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Jagitial.
ii.
The petitioners shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.
- 6 - iii.
The petitioners shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).
7.
Accordingly, both the Criminal petitions are allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 25.02.2026 TU
- 7 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2209 and 2214 of 2026 DATE : 25.02.2026 TU