Chukka Srikanth, v. State Of Telangana,
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17149 of 2025 DATE: 30.12.2025 Between:
Chukka Srikanth .... Petitioner/A-1 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.
.... Respondent
O R D E R
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner/A-1 seeking enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No.435 of 2025 of Maheshwaram Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 111(1), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(4), 340(1), 340(2), 31(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
- 2 - 2.
The brief facts of the case are that, on 12.11.2025, the defacto complainant lodged a report with the police stating that his brother, presently residing abroad, owns agricultural land admeasuring Ac.9.04 guntas in Sy.No.247/5 of Thummaloor Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The land was not updated in the Land Records Updating Program (LRUP) during the Dharani process and remained pending for Digital Signature in the revenue records. In July 2025, when his brother visited India, he approached the MRO Office, Maheshwaram, for updating the Digital Signature. After 15 days, he left abroad, and later, on verifying the status online, found that a slot had been booked for the sale of the land.
He immediately informed the complainant, who, upon verification at the MRO Office, discovered that a fabricated Pattadar Passbook had been issued in the name of his brother using a different Aadhaar number. Further inquiry revealed that Kishan Naik, Srikanth Naik, and Chukka Srikanth Goud, in collusion with certain Revenue Officials, had created a fake Aadhaar card by impersonating his brother with one Pandula Davalaiah, completed the Digital Signature process at a Mee Seva Centre, obtained the Pattadar Passbook, and booked a registration slot (Application No.
- 3 - without consent. Consequently, the complainant approached the police, seeking necessary action. Based on the said complaint, the police registered a case against the petitioner and other accused for the aforementioned offences. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer added Section 111(1) of the BNS, as there are earlier cases pending against the petitioner/accused No.1 and also accused No.2. 3.
Heard Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing 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 is innocent of the alleged offences and there is no role played by the petitioner and he is in jail since 13.11.2025 and all other accused were already granted bail by the trial Court and accused No.2, who is similarly situated candidate was also granted bail by this Court and the investigation has already been completed. Therefore, he prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.
5.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the ground that, the petitioner herein previously
- 4 - involved in five cases and three cases are for the similar offences, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief and 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 petitioner is in jail since 13.11.2025. As recorded in the remand case diary, the prosecution witnesses LWs.1 to 13 have already been examined. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the duration of incarceration and also that the co-accused were already released on bail, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.1, subject to the following conditions: i.
The petitioner/accused No.1 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 XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.
ii.
The petitioner/accused No.1 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
- 5 - whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.
iii.
The petitioner/accused No.1 shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).
iv.
The investigating officer is at liberty to file cancellation of bail if any other case is pending against the petitioner and if the petitioner is involved in any other case.
7.
Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 30.12.2025 TU
- 6 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17149 OF 2025 DATE : 30.12.2025 TU