Jetti Narsimha Reddy Vs The State Of Telangana

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11223 of 2025

Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.177 of 2025 of Devarkadra Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

¶4

The brief facts of the case are that on 17.08.2025, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police stating that the accused Nos.1 and 2 created a venture on the name of Laxmi Nagar, situated at Devarkadra. In that venture, he purchased a plot on instalment bases and he paid an amount of Rs.80,000/- and requested for registration of the same, but the accused Nos.1 and 2 abused him and cheated him. Hence, he requested to take legal action. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case vide Crime No.177 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (4), 115 (2), 352, 351 (2) of BNS Act and Sections 3 (2) (va), 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶5

Heard Sri Satyam Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Arun

¶6

2

¶7

Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

¶8

appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and the petitioner is not the owner of the said land, the accused No.2 is the owner and the land was already registered in the name of the defacto complainant on 25.08.2025 and the accused No.2 was already granted bail and the material part of the investigation was already completed and he is in judicial custody from 21.08.2025. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

¶10

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. Further, the investigation was not yet completed. At this stage, granting of bail to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶11

In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record,

¶12

3

¶13

it appears that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 21.08.2025 and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the land was already registered in the name of defacto complainant on 25.08.2025 by the accused No.2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶14

i. The petitioner 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 III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mahabubnagar.

¶15

ii. The petitioner 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.

¶16

4

¶17

iii. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).

¶18