Vemu Srinivasulu @ Chintu, 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.9526 of 2026 DATE: 02.07.2026 Between:
Vemu Srinivasulu @ Chintu .... Petitioner/Sole Accused AND The State of Telangana, Through represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.
.... Respondent/Complainant : ORDER :
This criminal petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner-accused praying to enlarge him on bail in connection with Crime No.300 of 2026 of RC Puram Police Station, Cyberabad.
The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 87, 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 5 read with 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
2.
The brief facts of the case are that on 12.05.2026, the de-facto complainant, who is the father of the victim, lodged a report before police stating that on 11.05.2026, he telephoned his elder daughter, who is studying Intermediate Second Year, and informed her that he would return home by 14:00 hours. However, when he and his wife returned at about 14:00 hours, they found the house locked. On calling his elder daughter's mobile phone, they discovered that the phone had been left inside the house. Upon enquiry, his younger daughter stated that she had gone to a friend's house at about 11:30 hours and that her elder daughter was present at home at that time. He searched for his daughter in the nearby locality and among relatives and friends but could not trace her whereabouts. Hence, she requested the police to take necessary action. Based on the said complaint, the police initially registered a case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 137(2) of BNS.
Subsequently, during the course of investigation, the section of law was altered to the above-mentioned offences. 3.
Heard Sri Chandrashekhar Yadav S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondentState. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations leveled against him. In fact, the victim herself approached the petitioner and also gave statements before the learned Magistrate stating that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and that she had voluntarily gone with him. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 16.05.2026 and that the material part of the investigation has already been completed. Hence, he prayed this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail by allowing this criminal petition. 5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail, contending that the offences alleged against the petitioner are grave and heinous in nature and that the investigation has not yet been completed. He further
submitted that the victim was about 17 years of age at the time of the incident and that, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is a threat to the victim. Therefore, he contended that, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 6.
Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 16.05.2026. The record further reveals that the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS has been recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the victim's statement, which indicates that she voluntarily went along with the petitioner. As per the remand case diary, prosecution witnesses, namely LWs.1 to 15, have already been examined. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the progress of the investigation and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, 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.15,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Prohibition and Excise Offences Court at Sangareddy.
ii.
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., on every Wednesday 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 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).
7.
Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 02.07.2026 SS
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9526 of 2026 Date: 02.07.2026 SS