Allowed

Kalukuntal Sathvik Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Feb 2025CRLP/2024/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail petition by accused No.1 in a dowry-harassment case registered after a December 2024 marriage. Court found complaint averments did not constitute Section 109 BNS offence and no incriminating evidence existed; with custody since January 2025 and main investigation done, bail was granted.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kalukuntal Sathvik Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2024 of 2025

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.947 of 2024 of Kushaiguda Police Station, Rachakonda, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

¶5

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of defacto complainant and accused No.1 was solemnized on 05.12.2024. From the day of the marriage, accused No.1, along with other accused, besides harassing the de-facto complainant mentally and physically, also threatened her with dire consequences for want of additional dowry. Hence, a case was vide Crime No.947 of 2024 before the Kushaiguda Police, Rachakonda, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 85 of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

¶6

Heard Sri. K.Buchi Babu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶7

¶8

SKS,J Crl.P.No.2024 of 2025

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he is no way concerned with the alleged offences. He secondly submitted that though there is no corroborative evidence, the petitioner was implicated in the case with false and fabricated allegations only to harass the petitioner. He thirdly submitted that the averments of the complaint do not constitute the offences under Section 109 of the BNS. He fourthly submitted that all the material witnesses were examined, and further detention of the petitioner is unnecessary. He fifthly submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.01.2025, causing undue hardship to his family. He sixthly submitted that the petitioner is resident of Telangana State, with movable and immovable properties, and is willing to furnish sureties as directed. He lastly submitted that previously, bail application of the petitioner, vide Crl.M.P.No.47 of 2025 was dismissed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, on 10.02.2025, without valid reasons and 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

¶11

¶12

SKS,J Crl.P.No.2024 of 2025

¶13

petitioner stating that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and also investigation is not yet completed, therefore, granting bail to the petitioner, at this stage, does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶14

After considering submissions from both the parties and reviewing the record, it is apparent that averments of the complaint do not constitute alleged offence under Section 109 of the BNS. It is noteworthy that there is no incriminating evidence to prove the alleged offences levelled against the petitioner. Hence, since the petitioner is languishing in jail from 29.01.2025 and also material part of the investigation is completed, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶15

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 II Additional Junior Civil Judge-CumII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

¶16

¶17

SKS,J Crl.P.No.2024 of 2025

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed.

¶21

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

K. SUJANA, J

Date: 14.02.2025 gms

SKS,J Crl.P.No.2024 of 2025

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶28

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2024 of 2025

¶29

Date: 14.02.2025

¶30

gms

Kalukuntal Sathvik Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kalukuntal Sathvik Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munawar Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Gottimukkala Raja Shekar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Mandava Sai Vs The State of Telangana

Anugu Rajitha, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Ammireddy Venkata Lakshmi Vs The State of Telangana

Thummala Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana