Bathini Santhosh, 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.6246 OF 2026 DATE: 05.05.2026 Between :
Bathini Santhosh ..... Petitioner/Accused And The State of Telangana, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court Road, Near Government City College, High Court, Ghansi Bazaar, Hyderabad, Telangana - 200 066 and another ..... Respondents
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail, who are arrayed as accused in S.C.No.57 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Jagitial. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS.
2.
Heard Sri Midhun Kumar Allu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was earlier arrested in Crime No.454 of 2024 and was subsequently granted bail. However, the said bail was later cancelled on the ground that the petitioner allegedly threatened LW.6, who is stated to be a witness in S.C. No.57 of 2025. It is contended that though the investigating officer claimed LW.6 to be the de facto complainant, in fact, she is not the de facto complainant in the present case and LW.6 refers to a different individual. He further submitted that the affidavit filed by the investigating officer is based on incorrect facts. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.
4.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature and that the statements of witnesses have been recorded and, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of his influencing or threatening the witnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
5.
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 was earlier released on bail, which was
subsequently cancelled on the allegation that he threatened LW.6, who is stated to be a witness, though not the de facto complainant as claimed by the prosecution. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the stage of the proceedings, and the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant regular 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 learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagitial.
ii.
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned trial Court on each and every adjournment without fail.
iii.
The petitioner shall not threaten or influence the witnesses, including the de facto complainant.
iv.
In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, particularly if the petitioner attempts to threaten witnesses or tamper with evidence, the respondent is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail before the competent Court.
v.
The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 483(2) of the BNSS.
6.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 05.05.2026 ss
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6246 OF 2026 Date: 05.05.2026 ss