Karru Snehith, v. The State Of Telangana, Through S.H.O., Medipally Police Station,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8603 of 2026 DATE: 22.06.2026 BETWEEN:

Karru Snehith .....petitioner/accused 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 in Crime No.642 of 2026 before the Medipally Police Station, Malkajgiri, registered for the offence punishable under Section 105 of BNS.

2.

The prosecution case is that on 29.04.2026 the de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that her mother, the deceased, was taken by the petitioner on a motorcycle after a

quarrel near Hanuman Temple, RTC Colony, Chengicherla. It is alleged that while travelling, the petitioner assaulted the deceased with a helmet, causing her to fall from the moving motorcycle and sustain grievous head injuries, to which she succumbed on 30.04.2026. Based on the complaint and CCTV footage, the police registered a case under Section 105 BNS and took up investigation.

3.

Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Boddu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and his wife, who is the daughter of the deceased. The entire case rests on the interested testimony of the complainant, and the incident, even as alleged, arose out of a family quarrel. It is contended that the death was accidental in nature, as the deceased fell from the motorcycle, and there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cause death. The conduct of the petitioner in shifting the deceased to the hospital further negates any

criminal intent, and thus the offence under Section 105 BNS is not attracted. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

5.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the there are serious allegations against the petitioner. Further, the investigation was not yet completed. At this stage, granting of bail to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal 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 01.05.2026 and the material part of the investigation is completed. 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 Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 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: 22.06.2026 PT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8603 of 2026 Date: 22.06.2026 PT