Laddu Singh @ Laddu, v. The State Of Telangana, Through Sho Ps Mangalhat, Hyderabad.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5707 OF 2026 DATE : 27.04.2026 Between :
Laddu Singh @ Laddu ...
Petitioner/A.2 And The State of Telangana, ... 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 Cr.No.88 of 2026 of Mangalhat Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 103(1) r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2.
The brief facts of the case are that on 25.02.2026 at 09.00 hours, the complainant- Smt Radha Agarwal, aged about 71 years, lodged a complaint before police stating that she has two married daughters and one son, Rishab Agarwal, aged about 31 years, who was unemployed and residing with her. It is alleged
that he frequently took money from the family and associated with friends in the Begum Bazar and Mangalhat areas, and had disputes with certain persons including Laddu and others. On 25-02-2026, complainant received information from Mangalhat Police Station that an unidentified male dead body with blunt injuries was found in a Ganesh-making warehouse at Aramghar Colony, suspected to be her son. She, along with her daughter and son-in-law, went to the spot and identified the body as that of Rishab Agarwal. On enquiry, it was learnt that on the night of 24-02-2026, the petitioner had taken the deceased to Aramghar Colony for consuming alcohol, where Munna Singh, Pranay, Om Prakash, Uday Kiran, Amresh, Mamu and others had gathered. At about 2:00 a.m. on 25-022026, a quarrel allegedly arose, during which the accused persons assaulted Rishab Agarwal due to previous enmity, causing injuries that resulted in his death. Hence, requested the police to take necessary action against the accused. 3.
Heard Sri Umesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.
4.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner/Accused No.2 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. No specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioner except a vague allegation of slapping the deceased, and no weapon, bloodstained articles, or other incriminating material was recovered from him. There is no direct eyewitness or reliable circumstantial evidence connecting him with the alleged offence. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner voluntarily surrendered before the police on 27-02-2026 after knowing that his name had been included in the case, which itself shows his bona fides.
It is argued that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, is a law-abiding citizen, has undergone heart surgery and is under treatment, and is the sole breadwinner for his parents, wife, and children. It is further submitted that he is a permanent resident, there is no likelihood of absconding, and he is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail by allowing this criminal petition. 5.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed for grant of bail, contending that the petitioner, in active coordination with A.1, brought the deceased to the shed and assisted in his wrongful confinement by tying
him to an iron pipe. He further contended that the petitioner physically assaulted the deceased by slapping and beating him during the course of interrogation in order to extract information. The petitioner also accompanied the other accused while shifting the deceased to another location, where he was subjected to further assault. Therefore, the offence committed by the petitioner is grave in nature. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition. 6.
Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel and the material placed on record, the alleged offence took place in a sudden altercation and there are no previous disputes between the petitioner and deceased. Petitioner is in jail from 28.02.2026 and the record shows that Lws.1 to 23 are examined including the investigating authority. Considering the period of incarceration, progress in investigation and the nature of allegations, 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) with two sureties for a like sum each to satisfaction of XVI-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad.
ii.
The petitioner shall appear before concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m., on every Monday 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.
iii.
The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 483(2) of the BNSS.
7.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 27.04.2026 Rds
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5707 OF 2026 Date: 27.04.2026 Rds