Korivi Mallaiah, 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.15896 of 2025 DATE: 17.12.2025 BETWEEN:

Korivi Mallaiah and another .....petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 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 petitioners on bail who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.221 of 2025 before the Athmakur Police Station, Suryapet District, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 61(2), 126(2), 103 read with 3(5) of BNS.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that on 21-10-2025, the complainant Gundala Narsaiah reported to the police that his sister Korivi Bhikshamamma was murdered by her husband Korivi Mallaiah, his son Praveen, his nephew Korivi Mahesh, and Mahesh's friends Vamsi and Janardhan. The complainant alleged that his sister was harassed and threatened by the accused due to suspicions of her having an illicit relationship. On the day of the incident, the accused allegedly attacked Bhikshamamma in Sudagani Bazaar, with Mahesh and Vamsi stabbing her to death. The complainant requested legal action against the five accused. On receipt of the said complaint, a crime was registered against the accused persons. 3.

Heard Sri Veera Babu Gandu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent - State.

4.

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and falsely implicated in the crime,

with no connection to the alleged offence. He contended that the allegations are baseless and concocted, and the police have misused their powers by filing a false case without proper enquiry or investigation, thereby harassing the petitioners. He asserted that the complainant has used illegal methods to implicate the petitioners, aiming to blackmail and harass him. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition. 5.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, contending that the crime pertains to serious set of allegations due to which the question of grant of bail to petitioners would not arise at this stage. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 6.

In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the main allegation against accused No.2 is that he actively participated in the assault leading to the death of the deceased Bhikshamamma, acting in concert with the other accused pursuant to a premeditated plan arising out of suspicion on her character. The case diary and

the statements of material witnesses prima facie disclose his involvement, and the investigation is still in progress. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to petitioner No.1/accused No.2 and the Criminal Petition, to that extent, is liable to be dismissed. Insofar as petitioner No.2/accused No.3 is concerned, though allegations exist, it is noted that he is only 20 years of age and the material on record indicates that his role appears to be comparatively lesser than that of the prime accused. Considering the age of the victim and the incarceration period of the petitioner No.2/accused No.3, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

i.

The petitioner No.2/accused No.3 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 learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet.

ii.

The petitioner No.2/accused No.3 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 No.2/accused No.3 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 in part. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 17.12.2025 SAI

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15896 of 2025 Date: 17.12.2025 sai