Chidirala Jyothi 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.9859 OF 2026 DATE : 01.07.2026 Between :
Chidirala Jyothi W/o. Upender and 2 others.
...Petitioners/
Accused Nos.1 to 3 And The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.
... Respondent Complainant
O R D E R
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to enlarge them on bail in connection with Crime No.145 of 2026 on the file of Nellikudur Police Station, Mahabubabad District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 132 and 223 read with 3 (5) of the BNS.
2.
The case of the prosecution is that on 17.06.2026 the complainant lodged a report before police,
wherein it is stated that on 15.06.2026 while she was performed her duties at Nellilkudur, Munigalaveedu Village, one Bollepalli Kotilingam came to PS and submitted police protection order in I.A.No.78 of 2026 stating that the petitioners are obstructing him not to construct the house and asked the SHO to give police protection for construction of his house. It is stated that when they went to the village on 15.06.2026 they found that the accused persons were obstructing not to construct the house and violated the orders passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.31 of 2024. Basing on the said allegations, police registered a case for the aforesaid offences. 3.
Heard Sri R.Prasanth, learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.
4.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them; that the petitioner never abused the complainant in filthy language; though the offences alleged against the petitioners are bailable, the learned trial Court without considering the same remanded
them to judicial custody, which is not in accordance with law, as such requested the Court to grant regular bail to the petitioners.
5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same and submits that there are three cases registered against the petitioners and they violated the injunction orders issued by the learned trial Court; that when the authorities concerned went to the place of offence, the petitioners obstructed the authorities in doing their legitimate work, as such the learned trial Court rightly remanded the petitioners to judicial custody and hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the offences mentioned in the remand report are punishable with below seven years and without considering the same the learned trial Court erroneously remanded the petitioners to judicial custody without assigning any reason. In view of the same, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur.
(ii) On such release, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 shall appear before the concerned S.H.O. 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 petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480 (3) of BNSS). 7.
Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 01.07.2026 YVL