Chinn Pandu @Mangali Pandu 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.3250 OF 2026 DATE : 18.03.2026 Between :
Chinna Pandu @ Mangali Pandu.
...
Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.
... Respondent : ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused in Crime No.2200 of 2025 before the Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.
2.
The brief facts of the case are that on 15.11.2025 at 13:00 hours, a complaint was lodged by Smt. Meravath Laxmi, aged 24 years, residing at Himagiri Nagar Colony, Hydershakote Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. She stated that
her minor sister Maheswari, aged 16 years, who had come to stay with her, went missing on 13.11.2025 at about 15:00 hours after informing that she was going to school to bring the complainant's children. Despite search efforts, she could not be traced. The complainant suspected one Mangali Pandu, aged 29 years, resident of Makthal Village, Narayanpet District, to be involved in her sister's disappearance. Based on the complaint, a case was registered under Sections 137(2) and 64(1) BNS and Sections 5(l) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
3.
Heard Sri B.Siddaiah, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State.
4.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case without any prima facie evidence. He contended that the allegations in the complaint are baseless, concocted, and do not constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged. He averred that the petitioner is an auto driver, the sole breadwinner of his family, supporting aged parents and two school-going children, and is a permanent resident of Makthal Mandal, Mahboobnagar District, he has no criminal antecedents, is not absconding. Therefore, he prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.
5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that allegations in the FIR disclose serious offences under the POCSO Act involving a minor girl, and the role of the petitioner requires thorough investigation. He lamented that the gravity of the offence, coupled with the suspicion raised by the complainant, necessitates custodial detention to ensure a fair and effective investigation. Therefore, he prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 6.
Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the material available on record, it is noted that petitioner is in judicial custody since 17.12.2025. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case in entirety, this Court is of the view to grant the relief of bail to petitioner, subject to compliance of following conditions:
i.
The petitioner 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 XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendernagar.
ii.
The petitioner 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 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: 18.03.2026 PT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3250 of 2026 Date: 18.03.2026 PT