G. Maheshwar 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.3777 of 2026 DATE: 17.03.2026 Between:

G.Maheshwar

...Petitioner/

A.1 AND The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Pubic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana.

Hyderabad.

.... Respondent

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner/Accused No.1 seeking to enlarge him on bail in C.C.No.962 of 2010 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 498A and 420 of IPC and Section 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

- 2 - 2.

Heard Sri K.Saibabu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State. 3.

In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it is stated that the petitioner and the de facto complainant are wife and husband. Due to disputes between them, they filed cases against each other. It is stated that thereafter, the petitioner and the de facto complainant entered into Memorandum of Understanding, dated 19.04.2014 to compromise their disputes and to settle the same out of the Court and to withdraw the cases including the present Calendar Case. It is stated that the petitioner also agreed for consent divorce and both of them withdraw the cases by them. But, as the petitioner and the complainant failed to file petitions before the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to record compromise and the same is pending, the said Court issued NBW against the petitioner and remanded him to judicial custody.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate and he is having old age parents. He further submits that due to

- 3 - misconception, the petitioner could not file petition before the learned trial Court, for which the learned trial Court issued NBW against him; that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the trial and hence, he prays to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

5.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same and submits that the Calendar Case is pending for the last 16 years, the petitioner is not entitled for bail and hence, he prays to dismiss the criminal petition.

6.

Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and on perusal of the material on record, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 05.03.2026 for the offence under Section 498A and 420 of IPC and Section 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner/A.1 subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner-A.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned XIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad.

- 4 - (ii) After release, the petitioner shall cooperate with trial of the aforesaid Calendar Case and he shall appear before the learned trial Court as and when required.

(iii) The petitioner-A.1 shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480 (3) of BNSS).

7.

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 17.03.2026 YVL