Pradeep Kushwaha Vs The State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2025)

Pradeep Kushwaha Vs The State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial in S.C. No. 111 of 2021 and dispose of the case at the earliest; bail not granted; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arrayed as Accused No.1 in S.C. No. 111 of 2021, should be enlarged on bail under Sections 480 & 483 BNSS. +1 more

Court's answer

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition was disposed of; the prayer for bail was not granted, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.

Ratio / Principle

The Court found that the Sessions case of the year 2021 was delayed owing to the non-appearance of the petitioner himself, which had led to issuance of the Non-Bailable Warrant.

Key takeaways

Noting the advanced stage of trial (PWs 1 and 2 examined; only four witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, remaining), the Court deemed it fit to direct the trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case at the earliest, rather than enlarge the petitioner on bail.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail - Criminal Petition No. 10042 of 2025 under Sections 480 & 483 BNSS by Accused No.1 in S.C. No. 111 of 2021 (VIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rangareddy District at Chevella), arising out of Crime No. 34 of 2021 of Dundigal Police Station (registered under Sections 395 and 411 IPC and Section 25(18)(b) of the Indian Arms Act; charge sheet filed under Section 395 IPC). Prosecution alleged theft of electrical wires worth about Rs.5,00,000 from the 'Caslmere Court Villas' venture on the intervening night of 06/07.01.2021. Petitioner arrested on 18.12.2024 pursuant to a Non-Bailable Warrant and in judicial custody since. Trial of a 2021 case was delayed due to the petitioner's own non-appearance; PWs 1 and 2 examined and only four witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, remained. HELD: rather than enlarging the accused on bail, the trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the case at the earliest; Criminal Petition disposed of and pending miscellaneous applications closed (K. Sujana, J.; decision dated 19-08-2025).

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Refusal/rejection of the petitioner's bail in S.C. No. 111 of 2021, said by his counsel to have rested on the 'habitual offender' ground without fresh material; the present Criminal Petition under Sections 480 & 483 BNSS seeks enlargement on bail in that case.¶25
Prior proceeding
S.C. No. 111 of 2021 (pending on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rangareddy District at Chevella) arises out of Crime No. 34 of 2021 of Dundigal Police Station, registered under Sections 395 and 411 IPC and Section 25(18)(b) of the Indian Arms Act.¶20
Prior proceeding
After investigation, the charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 395 IPC.¶20
Prior proceeding
Prosecution allegation: on the intervening night of 06/07.01.2021, seven unknown persons entered the 'Caslmere Court Villas' venture, assaulted and tied up the security guards and supervisor, beat the supervisor's wife, stole electrical wires worth about Rs.5,00,000 and fled; the accused were alleged to have committed theft by intimidating and assaulting the security personnel.¶20
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to a Non-Bailable Warrant, the petitioner was arrested on 18.12.2024, produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody, where he remained thereafter.¶23
Prior proceeding
As urged by petitioner's counsel, four co-accused had already been granted bail and parity was claimed; the earlier non-appearance before the trial Court (which led to the NBW) was attributed to ignorance, not deliberate evasion.¶25
Prior proceeding
The Additional Public Prosecutor stated that, except for four witnesses, all remaining witnesses had been examined, and prayed that the trial Court be directed to expedite the trial and the petition be dismissed.¶30
Prior proceeding
The Court observed that the Sessions case pertains to the year 2021 and that the trial was delayed due to the non-appearance of the petitioner; per the record PWs 1 and 2 have been examined.¶33