Podugu Sridhar, 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.5722 of 2026 DATE: 01.05.2026 BETWEEN:

Podugu Sridhar ..... Petitioner/Accused No.4 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

..... Respondent

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of prearrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.4 in Crime No.127 of 2026 before the Suryapet II Town Police Station, Suryapet District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 336(3), 340(2), 329(4), 324(4) and 338 read with 3(5) of BNS.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that on 23.06.2025, the de-facto complainant, lodged a complaint before Police stating that he and his siblings are the legal heirs of Late Sri Ramireddy, who had purchased an industrial shed from A.P.

Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited in the year 1994 in the name of "Sujatha Auto Enterprises," which was duly registered and subsequently rectified through registered documents and after the death of his elder brother, the complainant has been managing the affairs of the said property. On 20.03.2026, the accused persons, including Pinnamareddy Prabhakar Reddy, Tellaboyina Mahesh, and Tadoju Srikantha Raju, trespassed into the premises, broke open locks, and caused damage and that Accused No.1 forged the signature of the deceased brother and created a fabricated will, based on which the property was fraudulently transferred in favour of Tellaboyina Mahesh through a registered sale deed. Hence, the complainant requested the police to take necessary action. Basing on the said complaint, a case was registered against the petitioners for the above mentioned offences.

3.

Heard Sri Shaik Madar, 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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the dispute, if any, is purely between the complainant and Accused No.1, who are brothers, and the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the said dispute. He further submitted that substantial portion of investigation is complete and only the filing of the charge sheet remains, there is no necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to fully cooperate with the investigating agency and that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing the criminal petition.

5.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition by contending that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature and the petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence if granted anticipatory bail and that the investigation is still pending and, therefore, granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, at this stage, does not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 6.

In light of the submissions made by both learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident

that the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.4 and the initial complaint lodged by the complainant does not disclose any specific allegation against the petitioner. However, in the remand report, it is stated that Accused No.1, being the brother of the complainant, along with Accused Nos.2 to 4, allegedly conspired together and assisted Accused No.1 in forging the signature of the deceased on a stamp paper and creating a fabricated document. The principal allegation against the present petitioner is that he obtained a certificate from Suryapet Rural Police Station by falsely stating that the original title deeds of the subject property were lost while in his custody. Except for this allegation, there are no specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner.

It is further observed that the case is predominantly based on documentary evidence, which is already in the custody of the investigating agency. Therefore, the requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not arise at this stage. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and the material placed on record, this Court deems it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: i.

The petitioner shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Suryapet II Town Police Station, Suryapet District 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 Wednesday between 09:00 a.m, and 05:00 p.m. for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, 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: 01.05.2026 SS

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5722 of 2026 Date: 01.05.2026 SS