Peggapuram Satyamurthy, Vs State of Telangana

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13155 of 2025

This Criminal Petition is filed before this Court for grant of bail to the Petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.24 in FIR No.376 of 2024 of Chikkadpally Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 105, 118(1) read with 3(5) of the BNS.

¶4

The brief facts of the case are that on 05.12.2024, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that on 04.12.2024, his wife Revathi, son Sri Tej, and their daughter Sanvika together attended the premiere show of the movie Pushpa-II at Sandhya 70 MM Theatre by purchasing tickets. Around 21:10 hours, the theatre was crowded and by approximately 21:40 hours, when actor Allu Arjun was about to arrive at the theatre, his personal security team began removing the crowd. During this time, the complainant’s wife and son, who were in the lower balcony hall, experienced severe suffocation due to overcrowding and fell down. Police personnel on duty rescued them and shifted them to Durga Bai Deshmukh Hospital for treatment. Unfortunately, the complainant’s wife succumbed to her injuries. His son, after receiving first aid, was transferred to KIMS Hospital, Begumpet, for better medical care. The complainant alleges that due to the lack of proper arrangements and facilities, allowing such a huge crowd into the theatre caused a

¶5

2

¶6

stampede, which forced people to vacate their seats and resulted in the pushing and falling of his family members. This incident, triggered by the arrival of actor Allu Arjun and the actions of his security staff, led to the tragic death of his wife and serious injury to his son. Hence, he requested to take necessary action. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case for the above said offences.

¶7

Heard Sri R.Mangulal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case was registered in December 2024 and the petitioner was arrested on 07.10.2025. The petitioner is a bouncer employed as part of the personal security detail for the hero. It is submitted that the petitioner was merely performing his duty by managing the crowd for the purpose of the hero’s security. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner that attract Section 105 of the BNS Act. The petitioner is innocent of the charges leveled against him. Furthermore, the material part of the investigation has already been completed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to him by allowing this criminal petition.

¶9

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the allegations against the petitioner are of a

¶10

3

¶11

grievous nature. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶12

Considering the submissions of both learned counsel and after perusal of the material on record, it appears that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he acted as the hero’s personal security and pushed the crowd in the theatre. There are no specific allegations made against the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.24 subject to the following conditions.

¶13

i. The petitioner/accused No.24 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 IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally.

¶14

ii. The petitioner/accused No.24 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,

¶15

for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.

¶16

4

¶17