P.Nageshwar Rao, 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.2669 of 2026 DATE: 27.02.2026 Between:
P. Nageshwar Rao .... Petitioner/accused AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.
.... Respondent/Complainant ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS) by the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused, in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No.1325 of 2025 of Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
2.
The case of the prosecution is that, on 17.11.2025, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that he has been working as AE/OP, Gachibowli Section, since 14.10.2024. An enquiry was being conducted by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance & APTS, RR South PS, vide reference No.
45/RRS/CVO/TGSPDCL/2025 dated 24.10.2025, regarding the service connection bearing No. 11006-06900, Unique Service No. 114629586, pertaining to Sri P. Nageshwar Rao, issued to the open land located in Sy.No. 28. As per the request of the Vigilance Inspector, the complainant provided information regarding the said service connection and furnished the documents submitted at the time of application for the service connection. Further, he was informed by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance & APTS, RR South, that during the enquiry they obtained a certified copy of Document No. 10557/2022. Upon perusal, it was found that the original document differs from the one submitted by Sri Nageshwar Rao. They provided the certified copy of Doc. No. 10557/2022, which the complainant reviewed alongside
the document submitted by the applicant. It was found that the original document was executed in favour of M/s Lead India Pvt. Ltd., represented by Smt. Rajani Thalluri, whereas, the fabricated document submitted by Sri Nageshwar Rao contained different vendor names, vendee names, survey number, and extent. It was discovered that Sri Nageshwar Rao forged the signatures of the vendors and created a fabricated document, which he submitted along with the application vide NR No. 915243934800, dated 02.03.2024, to obtain an electricity connection. Consequently, he obtained electricity service connection No. 11006-06900 in his name by misleading the department and using forged documents. This act amounts to cheating and causing wrongful loss to TGSPDCL. Hence, he requested for necessary action. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case for the above said offences.
3.
Heard Sri Ravuri Sai Sumant, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -State.
4.
The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner herein is innocent of the said allegations and he is the original owner of the said property and she was already served with 35(3) notice and he already submitted the documents of the said property to the authorities and there is no such forged or fabricated documents submitted by the petitioner and all the offences are punishable below seven years and the petitioner is aged about 60 years and though 35(3) notice is served to the petitioner, now they are opposing the anticipatory bail. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for further investigation and huge property is involved in this case. Therefore, 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, the petitioner herein is arrayed as accused on the basis of the electricity department that he verified the documents and the documents submitted by the petitioner are forged and fabricated documents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations that he fabricated the documents and also that the owner of the said property is not the de-facto complainant, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
i.
The petitioner shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, within two weeks from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release him on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/-, with two sureties, for the like sum each.
ii.
The petitioner shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and co-operate with the Investigating Officer in investigating the case.
iii.
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer on every Monday between 09:00 a.m, and 05:00 p.m., for a period of 8 weeks or till the filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier, and thereafter, as and when required.
7.
Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 27.02.2026 TU
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2669 of 2026 Date: 27.02.2026 TU