Allowed¶10

Bajireddy Ramakanth, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Aug 2025CRLA/846/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court order dated 22.08.2025 by SKS, J in Crl.A.No.846 of 2025 admitting the appeal against conviction dated 18.08.2025 in Spl.S.C.No.23 of 2016 (Special Judge, SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-II Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad) and allowing I.A.No.1 of 2025 for suspension of sentence and bail: convictions under Sections 448, 427, 506 read with 34 IPC (all petitioners) and Section 3(1)(v)(x) SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 (petitioner Nos.1 to 3); maximum sentence five years; sentence of imprisonment alone suspended; release on personal bond of Rs.25,000/- each with two sureties of the like sum; grounds — appeal hearing likely to take considerable time.

What did the court decide?

I.A.No.1 of 2025 allowed: sentence of imprisonment alone suspended pending the appeal; petitioners directed to be released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- each with two sureties of the like sum each, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Main appeal admitted and listed on 26.09.2025.

Sl.
No.

DATE

ORDER

OFFICE
NOTE

02.

22.08.2025

SKS, J
Crl.A.No.846 of 2025

Admit.

List on 26.09.2025.

In the meantime, Registry is directed to call
for record from the trial Court and prepare paper
book and place before this Court.
I.A.No.1 of 2025
This Interlocutory Application is filed with a
prayer to enlarge the petitioners on bail by
suspending the sentence imposed_vide_judgment
dated 18.08.2025 passed in Spl.S.C.No.23 of 2016
by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases
under the SCs and STs (POA) Act,1989-cum-II
Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners

submitted that the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were found

guilty for the offences punishable under Sections
448, 427 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and under
Section 3(1)(v)(x) of the SCs and STs (POA) Act,
1989 and petitioner Nos.4 to 6 were found guilty
for the offences punishable under Sections 448,
427, 506 read with 34 of IPC. He further
submitted that there are no offences made out to
warrant the conviction of the accused, and that the
alleged charges have been filed merely to settle a
civil dispute and that the petitioner is having good
grounds to succeed in the appeal and the final
hearing of the appeal may be taken considerable
time. Therefore, he prayed the Court to allow this petition. On the other hand, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent,
opposed the bail petition, contending that the
petitioners are involved in several criminal cases
and have a history of past criminal conduct. He
further submitted that there is no illegality in the
order of the trial Court and that the trial Court has
rightly passed the impugned order and prayed the
Court to dismiss the petition.

guilty for the offences punishable under Sections

448, 427 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and under

Section 3(1)(v)(x) of the SCs and STs (POA) Act,

1989 and petitioner Nos.4 to 6 were found guilty

for the offences punishable under Sections 448,

427, 506 read with 34 of IPC. He further

submitted that there are no offences made out to

warrant the conviction of the accused, and that the

alleged charges have been filed merely to settle a

civil dispute and that the petitioner is having good

grounds to succeed in the appeal and the final

hearing of the appeal may be taken considerable

time. Therefore, he prayed the Court to allow this
petition.
On the other hand, the learned Additional

Public
Prosecutor
appearing
for
respondent,

opposed the bail petition, contending that the

petitioners are involved in several criminal cases

and have a history of past criminal conduct. He

further submitted that there is no illegality in the

order of the trial Court and that the trial Court has

rightly passed the impugned order and prayed the

Court to dismiss the petition.

Perused th	e co	nte	nts of the affidavit filed in
support of the pe Having reg	titio ard	n. to	the submissions made by
the learned cou	nsel	fo	r the petitioners and also
considering that	the	he	aring of the appeal might
take considerabl	e tim	e	as well as the fact that the
maximum punis	hme	nt	imposed is five years, it is
considered fit	to	su	spend the sentence of
imprisonment	alon	e	imposed against the
petitioners.
Accordingl	y, th	e	sentence of imprisonment
alone is suspend	ed a	nd	the petitioners are directed
to be released on	bail	on	executing a personal bond
of Rs.25,000/-	(Ru	pee	s Twenty-Five Thousand
Only) each with	two	sur	eties of the like sum each,
to the satisfactio	n of	th	e learned Special Judge for
Trial of Cases	und	er	the SCs and STs (POA)
Act,1989-cum-II	Add	itio	nal District and Sessions
Judge, Nizamaba ss	d.		_______ SKS, J

Perused th

e co

nte

nts of the affidavit filed in

support of the pe
Having reg

titio
ard

n.
to

the submissions made by

the learned cou

nsel

r the petitioners and also

considering that

the

aring of the appeal might

take considerabl

e tim

as well as the fact that the

maximum punis

hme

imposed is five years, it is

considered
fit

spend
the
sentence
of

imprisonment

alon

imposed
against
the

petitioners.

Accordingl

y, th

sentence of imprisonment

alone is suspend

ed a

the petitioners are directed

to be released on

bail

executing a personal bond

of Rs.25,000/-

(Ru

pee

s Twenty-Five Thousand

Only) each with

two

sur

eties of the like sum each,

to the satisfactio

n of

e learned Special Judge for

Trial of Cases

und

the SCs and STs (POA)

Act,1989-cum-II

Add

itio

nal District and Sessions

Judge, Nizamaba
ss

_______
SKS, J

Bajireddy Ramakanth, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajireddy Ramakanth, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajula Sneha @ Guduri Ashritha Vs Guduri Ganesh

Chapali Hanmanthu Vs The State of Telangana

Botla Anvesh Vs The State of Telangana

Patan Shakila Begum, Vs The state of Telangana

Mr. Rajneesh Keshan, Vs The State of Telangana

Narakula Gowtham Swamy Vs State of Telengana