Nakkanti Yuvaraj 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.5351 of 2026 DATE: 24.04.2026 BETWEEN:
Nakkanti Yuvaraj .....petitioner/accused No.2 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.
.....Respondent/complainant
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.780 of 2025 before the Nacharam Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 103(1), 303(2), 238 r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2.
The facts of the case are that on 24.12.2025 at about 18:30 hours, a complaint was received from Smt. Cheguru Snehalatha, stating that her aunt, Smt. Sureddy Sujatha, wife of Late Rama Chandra Reddy, aged 65 years, occupation Household, has been residing alone for the past one year at her own house, H.No.3-13-100/141/1, Baba Nagar, Mallapur. The complainant used to speak with her aunt frequently over the phone. On 19.12.2025, when she tried to contact her aunt on her mobile number, the phone was found switched off. She immediately contacted her aunt's neighbour, Sri Srinu, phone number 9849736341, who informed her that the house doors were locked. On 24.12.2025 at about 15:00 hours, the complainant personally visited her aunt's house and found her missing. She made enquiries with relatives and searched the surrounding areas, but no clue was found. Hence, she requested the police for taking necessary action. Basing on the said complaint police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.
3.
Heard Sri Donkuri Mallikarjun, 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 during the course of interrogation the police recorded the statement of a person who resides in the same colony wherein he stated that A.1 approached him voluntarily and confessed that he murdered the deceased on 19.12.2025 who is the owner of A.1 at her residence and kept her deadbody for the entire day at the same place and later with the help of A.2 and A.3 shifted the body to Rajolu of Konaseema District and requested him to help A.1. After recording the statement of the said person, the section of law was altered from "woman missing" to Sections 103(1), 303(2), and 238 read with 3(5) of the BNS, solely on the basis of an extra-judicial confession. The learned counsel contends that the de facto complainant has made false and baseless allegations against the petitioner/Accused No.2, who has no connection with the alleged crime and was arrested only on the basis of such weak and uncorroborated confession. It is further submitted that
the petitioner is just 19 years old, lost both parents, and is dependent on his aged grandmother, whom he also supports. As per the remand report, Section 103(1) does not apply to the petitioner, as the alleged act was committed by A.1, and Section 303(2) is also not attracted since no incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was not present at the scene of offence and was implicated solely based on the confession of A.1. It is also submitted that the material part of investigation has been completed and key witnesses have been examined, and therefore there is no likelihood of the petitioner tampering with the prosecution evidence.
The petitioner is in judicial custody since 31.12.2025 and prayed to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature, as such petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.
6.
In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner is in jail since
29.12.2025. As seen from the record, the material part of the investigation has been completed and charge sheet is also filed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of the petitioner and the incarceration period of the petitioner, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: i.
The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the I Additional Junior Civl Judge-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B. Nagar.
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: 24.03.2026 SAI
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5351 of 2026 Date: 24.03.2026 SAI