Jakkula Mallesham, 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.3353 OF 2026 DATE :26.03.2026 Between:

Jakkula Mallesham ....Petitioner/A.10 AND The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, Through SHO, Kothapally Police Station, Karimnagar District .....Respondent/Complainant : ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.34 of 2026 of Kothapally Police Station, Karimnagar District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 338, 340(2), 61(2), 329(3), 324(4),

292, 351(2) r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the incident occurred prior to 23.01.2026 in Sy.No.49 of Rekurthi Village, Kothapally Mandal, and was reported on 24.01.2026 by the complainant, Athuluri Govardhan, alleging that the accused namely Syed Sayeeduddin, Padigela Sanjana, Gone Santhosh Reddy, Mohammad Abdul Sami, Sayeed Abdul Hussain, Kovvelamudi Sheshagiri Rao, Reddy Gangareddy, Varun Kumar Reddy, and Guntuka Vamshi, and others in furtherance of their common intention, created a house construction permission along with a house plan purportedly issued by Rekurthi Gram Panchayat and produced the same as genuine before the Sub-Registrar, Gangadhar, for registration by falsely showing the boundaries of the complainant's land.

It is further alleged that the accused criminally trespassed into the land of the complainant, leveled the same using a blade tractor, causing damage to a tune of Rs.50,000/-. When questioned, the accused allegedly abused the complainant in filthy language and criminally intimidated him and one Teja Vardhan Rao with dire consequences, including threats to kill them.

the police to take necessary action against the accused basing on which the present crime is registered against the accused. 3.

Heard Sri M.Vishnu Vardhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State.

4.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner has no involvement in the alleged offence and his name was subsequently included during investigation without any material evidence. No specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioner either in the complaint or in the FIR. He further contended that the main allegations are against A.1 to A.9 who allegedly created false documents and executed sale deeds and that petitioner was neither a party to any such document nor involved in any transaction pertaining to the disputed land and that he was not present at the scene of offence. He further contended that the entire dispute is purely civil in nature. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.

On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that petitioner along with other accused created fake documents, permissions issued by the Rekurthi Grampanchayat by showing fake boundaries and Sy.No.49 and registered the land admeasuring 343.52 Sq yards in favour of A.2 and A.3 witnessed by A.4 and A.5 and thereafter A.2 registered the same in favour of A.6 witnessed by A.7 and A.9 in criminal conspiracy and got loan of Rs.1,12,00,000/- from ICICI Bank. Further, investigation is not yet completed. As such, petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed this Court to dismiss this petition.

6.

Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel and the material placed on record, the allegations against the petitioner herein is that A.1 to A.9 created and fabricated documents and executed sale deeds. Though complaint is filed against A.1 to A.9, the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he introduced A.1 to other accused. The allegations are mainly basing on documentary evidence. Considering the allegations against the petitioner and that as his name is not mentioned in the complaint, this Court

deems it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions :

i.

The petitioner shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Kothapally Police Station, Karimnagar 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 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.

iii.

The petitioner shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482 (2) of BNSS and co-operate with the Investigating Officer in investigating the case.

7.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 26.03.2026 Rds

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3353 OF 2026 Date: 26.03.2026 Rds