Lolavath Veena, 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.2658 OF 2026 DATE : 13.03.2026 Between :
Lolavath Veena ...
Petitioner/A.3 And The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ... Respondent : ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.3 in FIR No.123 of 2025 of Uppal Police Station, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 318(4), 335, 336, 338, 340(2) r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2.
The facts of the case are that on 25.01.2025 the complainant, lodged a complaint before the police stating that she is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.143 in Sy.Nos.661 and 662, admeasuring 200 square yards, situated at Baba Nagar Colony, Uppal Kalan, under GHMC Uppal Circle, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. She stated that she purchased the said plot through a registered sale deed dated 24.06.1993 and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same since then. It is further stated that she applied for regularization of the plot by paying LRs through Application No.C/GHMC/022235/2020 dated 21.09.2020, which is under consideration. She and her husband used to visit the plot frequently and had informed the neighbouring residents to keep watch over the property. On 06.01.2025 at about 11:30 a.m.
, the neighbours informed her that some persons along with bank officials were measuring the plot and enquired whether she had sold it to them. When she stated that she had not sold the plot to anyone, the person contacted her over the phone claiming to be the owner of property. She then asked him to come to the plot with relevant documents on 07.01.2025. On that day at about 10:00 a.m., the said person came to the plot and showed xerox copies of documents, including a sale deed bearing Document No.8998/2024 dated 05.07.
by one Lolavath Veena in favour of Rachala Venkata Ramana. The documents also contained a death certificate showing that the complainant died on 26.06.2000 and a family member certificate stating that Lolavath Veena was the sole legal heir of the complainant and her husband. It is alleged that these documents were fabricated and that another sale deed bearing Document No.9316/2024 dated 12.07.2024 was subsequently executed in favour of one Upender. The complainant further stated that she and her husband are alive, that she retired from service at ICMR/NIN on 31.05.2020, and that they have no daughter by name Lolavath Veena. Alleging that the accused persons colluded with each other and created false documents to grab the property, she requested the police to take action. Based on the said complaint, the police registered a case against the accused for the above offences.
3.
Heard Sri Dunna Ambedkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.
4.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence. A.1 and A.2 are the key persons who used the petitioner's Aadhar cards
and created fake documents without her knowledge. The petitioner herein is falsely implicated in this case and the remand report shows that the petitioner was absconding from the date of registration of FIR which is false as the petitioner approached the police in her family dispute with some other person on 05.03.2025 which was settled amicably in the same police station and even though the police know that the petitioner is accused in the present crime, they did not arrest her on 05.03.2025 and after 13 months only to harass the petitioner she was arrested. The petitioner herein is a woman and eking out her livelihood by doing tailoring. Petitioner is in jail from 20.02.2026. Hence, prayed this Court to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the petitioner herein along with other accused created fake death certificate of complainant and a fake legal heir certificate showing herself as the legal heir of the complainant and fraudulently registered the plot belonging to the complainant in the name of A.1. Hence, the offences alleged against the petitioner are serious in nature, as such, petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.
6.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is noted that the petitioner is arrayed as A.3 in the present case. The main allegation against the petitioner is that she created a fake death certificate showing that the de facto complainant had died and also fabricated a legal heir certificate showing that she is the sole legal heir of the complainant. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the said allegations and that she is a tailor by profession and has no knowledge regarding the preparation or use of the said documents. It is further submitted that A.1 and A.
2, who are alleged to be the main persons involved in the offence, have already been granted bail. The record further reveals that the material part of the investigation has been completed and LWs.1 to 17 have already been examined.
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 VI-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Uppal at Medipalli.
ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m., on every Wednesday 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.
iii. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 483(2) of the BNSS.
7.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 13.03.2026 Rds
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2658 OF 2026 Date: 13.03.2026 Rds