Partly allowed

Jayalaxmi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Jul 2025CRLP/7511/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of two criminal petitions seeking anticipatory bail in a matrimonial dispute. Accused No.1 faced specific allegations preventing bail, while bail was granted to the remaining accused Nos.2 to 8 since the offence was not attracted against them, subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.7510 dismissed; Criminal Petition No.7511 allowed with conditions to surrender by 08.07.2025, post bond, and cooperate in investigation without influencing witnesses.

Jayalaxmi Vs The State of Telangana — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[3303])

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7510 AND 75'tl OF 2025

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No: 7510 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bolubanda Jalandar Kumar, S/o. Bala Ram, Aged about 38 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 1- 59, Narva [Vlandal, Patherched, Mahabubnagar.

¶10

...Petitioner/Accused No.1

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad.

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/accused no. 1on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.466 of 2025 on the File of PS- Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District.

¶15

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 75'l'1 OF 2025

¶16

Between:

¶17

Jayalaxmi, Wo. Kollam Pelly Chandra Shekar, Aged about 40 years, OccHousehold, Rlo. 1-642110/5, Ashok Nagar, Near Ambedkar Chowrastha, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar.

¶18

Shekar @ Kollam Pally Chandra Shekar, S/o. Venkatesh, Aged about 51 years, Occ- Agriculture, Rlo. 1-6-42110/5, Ashok Nagar, Near Ambedkar Chowrastha, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar.

¶19

Vijayalaxmi @ Pratiksha GoverdhanMadiwal, D/o. Bala Ram, Aged about 40 years, Occ- Household, R/o. 286'1 , Goandevi Road, Near BRS Ground, New Balaji Nagar, Khuntavali.

¶20

Rajyalaxmi @ Saviya Jalanila Naresh, C/o. Naresh Krishna Jananila, Aged about 36 years, Occ- Household, R/o. H.No.476, Behind Holy Spirit School, Modsal, Borda, Margao, South Goa.

¶21

Umarani N, C/o. Jagadeeshwar N. Aged about 35 years, Occ- Household, R/o. H. No.1 -69, Yelai, Vikarabad.

¶22

Bolbanda Balaram, S/o. Budappa, Aged about 67 years, Occ- Agriculturel R/o. H.No.1-59, Narva Mandal, Patherched, Mahabubnagar District.

¶23

Bolbanda Chennamma, Wo. Bolbanda Balaram, Aged about 58 years, OccHousehold, R/o.H.No.'1-59, Narva Mandal, Patherched, Mahabubnagar District

¶24

... Petition,? r/Acc used No.2 to 8

¶25

AND

¶26

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, l-ligh Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad.

¶27

...Respondent

¶28

Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/accused no.2 to 8 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in Crime.No.466 ol 2025 on the File of PS-Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar Distnct.

¶29

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the ilemorandum of Grounds of Cnminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

¶30

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶31

¶32

)

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE.I. SIIEENIVAS RAO

¶34

CRIMINAL PEI'II'ION Nos.75l0 and 751I ol'2025

¶35

COMMON ORDER:

¶36

Since these crirninal petitions are arising out of Crirne No.466 ol 2025, these criminal petitions are heard together and disposed olby this cornrnon order.

¶37

'l'hese Criminal Petitions are flled under Section 482 of Bharativa Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha. 2023 (fbr shorl 'BNSS') seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 8 in Crime No.466 o1- 2025 on the fite ol .laclcherla Police Station, Mahaboobnagar District, registered for the off'ences punishable under Section 69 of thc Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhith a, 2023 (for short ' BNS' ).

¶38

The case of the prosecution in brief is that de facto complainant was engaged to petitioner/A- I on 31.08.2024 with the consent of elders, during wtrlch a dowry ol 4 lakhs and 7 tulas oi gotd was agreed to and handed over at her parent's expenses. After the engagernent,^de facto complainant alleged that the petitioner'/A-l maintained contact^{with her,} met her frequently, even physically exploited het'undcr^{the pretextol'}

¶39

¶40

)

¶41

rnarrage. The petitioners allegedly kept postponing the rvedding. Eventually, the wedding was ananged olt 0,).04.2025, but on 08.04.2015, the accused took back the gold and falsely claimed rha. rhe de.fac.to complainant family arrived late to the wedding and rvedding rvas called o[], she was allegedly humitiated by accLrsed. Basing on the salne, prcsent crime was registered.

¶42

I leard Mr.Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel lor thc petitioners and Mr.Syed yasar Mamoon, learned Ad<iitional public Prosecutor for the respondent_State-

¶43

-5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petirioners ha'e not c,mmitted alleged offences and they were fblsely irnplicated in the said crirne. Even accor.Cing to the allegations rnade in rhe cornplaint. ingredients under Section 69 of the BNS are not iitf[lctc(l a-llalnst petitioner/A_ I or other accused. Leamcd counsel fbr thc petrtroners f urther submifted that engagement ol- the de _/ttcto cornplainant and petitioner/A- l with co nsent of the ejde,rs look place on I 1.08.10:4 and rhe mariage dare was fixed on 09.0.1.2025. .l-he de fac.to complainant herself withdrawn th e marriage ancl cn the otherhand Ioclged a contplaint agarnst the petitioners on 1 1 06.202-5 q,ith an

¶44

-1

¶45

intention to harass the petitioners. He fufiher submitted that thc pctitioner Nos.2 to 8 are sisters, brother-in-laws and parents of A- l. There are no allegations much less specific allegations against the petitioner Nos.2 to 8. He further submittcd that thc petitioners are not having any criminal antecedents and they are ready to cooperate with the investigation and also ready to abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court and hence, prayed fbr grant ol anticipatory bail.

¶46

On the other hand, leamed Additionat Public Prosecutor sr-rbrnitted that petitioners havc committed a grave of'fence, and there are specific allegations against them and the investigation is under progress. Therefbre, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, at this stage, there is every chance to influence the rvitncsses and to interf'cre with the investigation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶47

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material availablc on record, it^reveals tlrat basirrg on the cornplaint lodged b"v tle-/aclo^{cotnplainant crime} No.-166 o1' 2025^{was registeredon I 1.06.2025 lor the of'Gnce}

¶48

¶49

punishable under Section 69 of BNS. After perusal c,'- thc a[leqations nrade in the cornplaint, this Court is of the considered,iiew that oifcnce tunder Section^(r9 of BNS is not attracted against the pt:titioner/acc used Nos.l to 8. In so thr as, petitioner/A- I is concemed tlrere arc specific and scrior,rs allcgations are leveled.

¶50

8 1-aking into consideration the above facts, since thcle are spccilic allegations :rsainst the petitioner/accused No. 1 , th is Court is not inclincd to grant anticipatory bail in his favour. especia[[1 rihen invc'stigation is under progress. Hence, Criminal Petition No.75 i0 of 2015 is disnrissed. [nsofar as the petitioners/accusi',1 Nos.2 to 8 in Crinrinal Pctition No.75 I I of 2025 is concemed, as the inglcdients runde'r Scclion 69 ol BNS are not attracted, this CcLrrt is inclined to urant anticipatory bail to petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 8, subject to the Ibllorving conclitions:

¶51

l. The petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 8 shall surrender belbrc the Station House Officer of Jadcherla Potice Station. Mahabubnagar District, on or before 08.07.2025, and on such surrender, the said Station l{ouse Officer shall release the petitionersr accused Nos.2 to 8 on bail on their executing a personal bond lirr Its. 10.000/- (Rupees ten thousand onlv) rvith rr.r,o sLlret ies, lbI a like sum cach.

¶52

¶53

)

¶54

After release, the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 8 shalt appear before the concerned SHO as and when their presence is required.

¶55

-1. After release, the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to⁸ shall not influence the witnesses or intert'ere with the investigation.

¶56

The petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 8 shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482 (2) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 and cooperate with the Investigating Officcr irr investigating the case.

¶57

Accordingly, the Crirninal Petition No.75 ll ol 2025 is allou,ed ancl Crirninal Pctition No.75 l0 of'2025 is dismisscd.

¶58

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶59

//TRUE COPY//

¶60

SD/. A.PRATHIMA
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
S TION OFFICER

¶61

To,

¶62

The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla 2 The station House officer, Jadcherra r"*" p"ri" station, Mahabubnagar

¶63

Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court forlf,u Siut" of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶64

One CC to Sri Raiaoooallavan Tayi, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies

PAc. AI]K/PSL

/ '

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0110712025

COMMON ORDER

CRLP.Nos.7510 and 7511 of 2025

¶71

.ii:;i,h*.
I
,<br>li
\i 2 7 Utr 2t[5 ()
L
'/
',
_-1..

¶72

CRLP No.751^'l Ol= 2025 lS ALLOWED AND

¶73

CRLP No.7510 Ol:2025 lS DISMISSED

¶74

Pr1cr. >3 \r^{o :-(}

Jayalaxmi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayalaxmi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajjad Ali Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Lt Col P Ram Prasad Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Gone Nikhitha , Sirisala Rajani Vs The State of Telangana

Challa Venkateshwarllu And 8 Others Vs State of Telangana And Another

Susheel Singh Alias T. Susheel Singh Vs The State of T. S

Jarupula Mohan Vs The State of Telangana