Maranganti Pavan Mohan Krishna, 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.15156 of 2025 DATE: 01.12.2025 Between:
Maranganti Pavan Mohan Krishna .... Petitioner/accused No.12 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.
.... Respondent/Complainant ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner/A.12 seeking enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No.147 of 2025 of Gopalapuram Police Station, Hyderabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61, 316, 335, 336, 340 and 111 of the BNS and Sections 38, 39,
and 40 of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 and Sections 81 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, 'JJ Act').
2.
The brief facts of the case are that on 25.07.2025, the defacto complainant lodged a report with the police stating that a grave incident of cheating, fraud, and criminal conspiracy orchestrated by Dr. Pachipali Namatha and her associates at Universal Srushti Fertility Centre, in Secunderabad and Visakhapatnam. After two miscarriages, the couple approached the clinic in August 2024 for IVF. Despite being medically fit, they were persuaded to opt for surrogacy, with assurances that their own gametes would be used and a healthy child delivered after DNA confirmation. They paid Rs.30,26,000/- between August 2024 and May 2025 through bank transfers, cheques, and cash. Gametes were collected in September 2024, and the clinic later claimed successful embryo implantation and pregnancy.
Medical reports were shared selectively, and originals were withheld. In June 2025, the clinic informed them of the delivery of the surrogate delivery and handed over a newborn at Lotus Hospital, Visakhapatnam, without prior DNA testing.
them. When confronted, Dr.Namratha initially responded but later blocked communication and fled the premises. The complainant alleges deliberate misrepresentation, misuse or illegal disposal of gametes, and fabrication of the surrogacy process, amounting to fraud, breach of trust, and possible trafficking of reproductive material and requested for necessary legal action along with confidentiality of personal details. Based on the above report, the Police have registered a case for the above said offences and the petitioner herein was arrayed as accused No.12 and the allegations against him are that he is the Supervisor of the said Hospital and he also actively involved in the said cheating and he counseled many patients suffering from fertility issues and convinced several of them to opt for commercial surrogacy, as such, he also arrayed as accused No.12. 3.
Heard Ms. Barkha Bhalla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
4.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.12 and all other accused were already released on bail and there is no such offence committed by the petitioner herein and he is innocent of the said
allegations and he is falsely implicated in the present case and he is in jail from 01.08.2025 and the material part of the investigation was already completed and prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.
5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail by filing counter denying the averments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and he submitted that the petitioner herein played a vital role in the said offences and the allegations against this petitioner are serious in nature. However, he informed the Court that no charge sheet is filed and prayed to dismiss this 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 from 01.08.2025 and as seen from the record, no charge sheet is filed even after 120 days. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the incarceration period of the petitioner, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner/A.12, subject to the following conditions:
i.
The petitioner/A.12 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 learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate Session Judge, Hyderabad District, at Nampally.
ii.
The petitioner/A.12 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/A.12 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:01.12.2025 TU
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15156 of 2025 Date: 01.12.2025 TU