Gugoloth Ravindhar 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. 15738 of 2025 DATE: 08.12.2025 Between:
Gugoloth Ravindhar and another .... Petitioners/ accused Nos.3 and 4 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, Through S.H.O., Dundigal Police Station.
.... Respondent/Complainant
O R D E R
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 seeking their enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No.1043 of 2025 of Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 123, 318(4)
- 2 - and 303(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act, 1959. 2.
The brief facts of the case are that, on 22.10.2025, the defacto complainant lodged a report stating that he had become acquainted with the petitioners, who suggested him to perform a Barish Pooja for good profits. They manipulated him by claiming that if he deposited Rs.25,00,000/-, they would return Rs.50,00,000/-, and he believed their words. On 17.10.2025, the petitioners arranged a pooja in his Mahaveen Dhana Shop, located in front of his house. On 18.10.2025, one Guruji, along with two unknown persons, began performing the pooja. After some time, Guruji offered badam milk and sweets to the complainant and his driver, which caused them to fall unconscious. Taking advantage of this, the petitioners, Guruji, and the two unknown persons stole the money. Consequently, the complainant requested the police to take necessary action, and based on his complaint, a case was registered for the aforementioned offences.
3.
Heard Sri Jarupula Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
- 3 - 4.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the case and that the petitioners were arrested on 26.10.2025 and have been in judicial custody since 27.10.2025 and that the material part of the investigation, insofar as it concerns these petitioners, has already been completed, and all the allegations are primarily against accused Nos.1 and 2. He further submitted that the trial Court dismissed the first bail application without assigning any reasons, and the second bail application was also dismissed on the ground that a police custody petition was pending against the petitioners. In fact, no such custody petition was filed against these petitioners. Therefore, he prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioners.
5.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, contending that the allegations against the petitioners are grave in nature. He submitted that, by creating a false belief in the mind of the de‐facto complainant, the petitioners and other accused lured him into parting with a sum of Rs,25,00,000/-. He further contended that they administered Ativan powder mixed in rasagulla, as a
- 4 - result of which the de‐facto complainant and his driver fell unconscious, and that the investigation is still incomplete. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 6.
In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 27.10.2025. As recorded in the remand case diary, the prosecution witnesses LWs.1 to 14, including the investigating officer, had already been examined, and further the alleged amount is also recovered from accused No.1. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the duration of incarceration, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4, subject to the following conditions:
i.
The petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 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 VIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Medchal, Rangareddy District.
- 5 - ii.
The petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 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 petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 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 petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 08.12.2025 SS
- 6 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15738 OF 2025 DATE : 08.12.2025 SS