Magani Nagarjuna @ Nagarjuna v. The State Of Telangana, Through The Station House Officer,
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6347 OF 2026 DATE : 04.05.2026 Between :
Magani Nagarjuna @ Nagarjuna ...
Petitioner/A.4 And The State of Telangana ... Respondent/Complainant : ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarak Surakasha Sanhita, 2023 praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.4 in Crime No.230 of 2026 of Jawaharnagar Police Station, Medchal Malkajgiri District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 126(2), 140(1), 127(8), 310(2), 61 r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- 2 - 2.
The facts of the case are that on 14.02.2026 at about 18:00 hours, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint stating that on 31.01.2026 at about 16.40 hours, while he was travelling from Janapriya to Dammaiguda, the complainant was intercepted at Jammigadda by a group of persons who kidnapped and assaulted him. He was taken to an isolated place on the Bhuvanagiri-Jangaon route, where he was again assaulted and forced to admit to having a relationship with his sister's daughter, Shanmukhi aged about 17 years. Out of fear, he admitted the same and his statement was recorded. Later, he was moved to another unknown location where his gold chain and mobile phone were robbed. Subsequently, his sister Madhuri, her family members, and others also assaulted him before dropping him back at Jammigadda with his car.
The complainant later identified some of the accused as Sai, Mahesh, and suspects that one Jangamayya Goud trapped Shanmukhi, misused her, and tried to falsely implicate him. Hence, requested the police to take necessary action against the accused basing on which the presence crime is registered against the accused for the above offences.
3.
Heard Sri BH. Sai Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned
- 3 - Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondentState. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case on mere conjectures and surmises. The petitioner had no voluntary involvement in the alleged offence and that A.5, who is a friend of the petitioner, frequently used to borrow the petitioner's Innova car for personal purposes. On the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 31.01.2026, A.5 requested the vehicle, and since the petitioner required it back by night for a customer's outstation journey, he accompanied him. It is further contended that other accused persons boarded the vehicle and, when the petitioner refused to cooperate, they threatened him with dire consequences, compelling him to drive the vehicle under coercion and fear for his safety.
The petitioner did not participate in any assault, robbery, or other unlawful act. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged confessional statement said to have been recorded by the police is fabricated, involuntary, and inadmissible in evidence.
- 4 - petitioner has already been taken into police custody on 10.04.2026 and thoroughly interrogated; therefore, no further custodial interrogation is required. He also contended that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed this Court to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. The petitioner along with other accused assaulted the complainant and he assisted A.1 in committing the offence. If the petitioner is released on bail, he may threaten the witnesses and tamper with evidence. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.
6.
Having regard to the submissions made and the material placed on record, the petitioner herein is arrayed as A.4 and he is in jail from 18.03.2026. The allegation against him is that he is the owner of the Innova car used in the commission of offence, in which the victim was abducted. Further A. 2 in this case was granted bail. Considering the nature of allegations, facts and circumstances and the period of incarceration of
- 5 - petitioner in jail, 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 the satisfaction of the IIAdditional District & Sessions MedchalMalkajgiri District at Medchal. ii.
The petitioner shall appear before the 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 petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :04.05.2026 Rds
- 6 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6347 OF 2026 DATE :04.05.2026 Rds