Partly allowed

Smt K. Kavitha, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Oct 2025CRLP/12463/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

De facto complainant sought cancellation of bail granted without reasons to eight accused in a murder and attempted murder case. The High Court cancelled bail of accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5, dismissed it against accused No.4 (aged) and accused Nos.6 to 8 (women), and directed trial Courts to assign reasons when granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail cancelled for accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5; petition dismissed for accused Nos.4 and 6 to 8; liberty to file fresh bail petitions.

Smt K. Kavitha, Vs The State of Telangana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^338s ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

SATURDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12463 OF 2025

¶7

Between

¶8

Smt K. Kavitha,, W/O. Jaipal, aged about 28 yea$, Occ. House wife, R/o Khqapur village, Sirgapur l.4andal, Sangareddy District

¶9

PETITIONERYDEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad 2. Kurma Hanmandlu @ Hanmanna @ Bujji,, S/o. Sai Gonda, Age 31 years,Occ Agriculture,

¶12

Kurma Raju,, S/o. Sai Gonda, Age 28 years, Occ Agriculture,

¶13

Kurma Pandari,, S/o. Sai Gonda, Age 30 years, Occ Agriculture

¶14

Kurma Sai Gonda,, S/o. Ram Gonda, Age 74 yea$, Occ Agriculture,

¶15

Kurma Dakannna @ Dak Gonda,, S/o. Ir,4algonda, Age 29 years, Occ Agriculture

¶16

Kurma Kavitha,, W/o. Pandari, Age 27 years, Occ Agriculture(A6)

¶17

Kurma Vasudha,, W/o Hanmandlu, Aged about 25 years, Occ Agriculture,(A7)

¶18

Kurma Kistavva,, Wo. Sai Gonda, Age 54 years, Occ.Agriculture(A8)

¶19

All the respondents No. 2 to 9 are R/ o. Khajapur village, Sirgapur Mandal, Sangareddy District

¶20

..RESPONDENT/ACCUSED 1 TO A8

¶21

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to cancel the bail to the Respondenl2lo I I Accused No. 1 to 8 while set-a-side the orders in CRLtt4P No. Cr.l.M.P. No. 427 of 2025 lN Cr.No. 60 of 2025 (P.S. Sirgapur) dated 15- Ol -2025 on the file of lV Additional Session Judge, Sanga Reddy

¶22

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing ne [t/emorandum of Grounds of Crim nal Petition and upon hearing the argumer is of Sri Gundlapalli V S S Sruthi ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt Shalin; :i rxena, the Assistant Publrc Prosecuto: for the State of Telangana on behalf of th: Respondent No. 1

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

,/ ,/

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 12453 of2o25

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The present Crrminal Petilion is hled by the petitioner lor cancellation of bail gran tecl by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.427 of 2O2i> in Crime No.60 of 2025, rvherein the allegations are for thc offences punishaLblc under Sections 191(2), 191(s), 103(1), to9(2),6t(2'j of BNS r/u' Section 190 o[ BNS.

¶30

Heard Smt. G.V.S.S. Sruthi, learned counsel lor petitioner as well as Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on bchalf of the respondent No.¹ State-

¶31

Learned cotrnsel for the petitior-rer submitted that on 29.06.2025, the de-facto complainant Iodged a report before the police agarnst accused Nos.l to 8, who were responsible for the murder of the deceased and also attempted to commit murder of one Kurma Rame sh by beating with deadly weapons and thereafter, the invcstigation was conducted and

"<br>

arrested all the accused and lhey filed Crl.M.P.No.1 ).7 <;t 2025 for grant of bail and the trial Court .t'ithottt as^j gning an1' reasons, wrthin 15 days of the remand, granted b^r Ito all the accusecl, on the ground that statements of eyclri'r cSS'-lS anCI inlured rverc :rlso recorded excepl receipt of FSL 'cporL and thc investigation was already completed. ll is rirrther subrni[ted tllat, after release from jail, accused l'],r I not onll' threatened ihe de facto complainant and rvi'r csscs, hc attempted to murder of one of the injured i.e.^Str 11. Kurma Manemma ancl she also lodged a report before tlrr: police and the police also registered a case against accuse I No.i and q,hich was also published in the news that ar'. rsed No. I atte mpted to murder the de-facto complainan t ar-rd other injured persons and the accused were grantecL 1 ail. It is lurther subinitt.ed that there is a lhreat to t:: : de facto complainant and witnesses and therefore, she I rar.,:cl thc Court to cancel the bail granted by the trial Court.

¶36

On the other hand, learned counsel for the t t spondents submitted that, except accused Nos.1 to 3 ancl^. i t en Laining accused No.4 is aged about 74 years and accusec Nos.6 to 8 are women zrnd the only allegation against these tccused is

that they misbehaved rvith the de-facto complainant and other witnesses and the accused Nos.6 to 8 arc innocent of the allegations leveled againsl them. It is lurther submittcd that, even in the present casc, there are no allegations against these accused. Therefore, he prayed thc Court to dismiss the criminal petition against accused Nos.4 and 6 to 8-

¶41

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that prosecution also has filed cancellation of bail petition, which is under the process and they t ill also take steps for cancellation of the bail. It is further submitted that the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the police and basing on the same, the police registcred a case against accused No. 1, who attempted to murder the de facto complainant.

¶42

¶43

In the light of the submissions made by the respective counsels and upon perusal of the material avaiiable on record, the trial Court has not assigned any reasons while^granting bail and simply stated that the investigation is completed and granted bail to accused Nos.l to 8. In the following Judgments the^Hon'lcle Apex Court observed that^whiie

\ [.

granling bail reasons must be assigned i.e. I. lL ahepal o. Rajesh Kumart, 2. Sunil Kumar a. State of ) lihar2, 3. Kamala Deui u. Strr.te of Rajasthan3, 4. Aaio, :n Deti u. Pappu Kumay', 5- Ms. Y. u. Stdte of Raja.sthan:. There are no reasons assigned by the trial Court while gr:rr r ng b:ril to accused Nos.l to 8 in a grave offence. Considerin I^{the facts} and circumsLtrnces of the case, this Criminal Petrt rr n is partly allori,ed i:ancelli,-rg the bail of accused No. 1 to .l .nd 5 and dismissed the criminal petition for accuscd No.4 by considering the i.rge of the accused and aiso for acr:r Lsed Nos.6 to 8, lvho are women and further, accused Nos. l c 3 ancl 5 are at liber[.. to file fresh bail petition at appropriat. r l inre and further, t he le:rrncd trial Court is directed to ass I n reasons whilc granting bail petitions in future.

¶48

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, s eall sland

¶49

ciosed

¶50

SD/. C. DEEPIKA L(;D?r) a scc il8 !; STANT REGISTRAR '(-lo^{zt-2 3 scc} 2+5 3&-oea) 6 scc 1e6 1s7 qt2n24 4 se //TRUE COPY// r2p27 livelaw [sOzsq 'I^{</sup> SECTION OFFICER}

¶51

To,

¶52

The IV Additional Session Judge, Sanga Reddy 2. The Station House Officer, Sirgapur Police Station, Sarg areddy 3. Two CCs to lhe Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telan<yr na, Hyderabad (our)

¶53