Dismissed

Abbu Narender v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Jul 2025CRLP/8109/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard criminal petitions seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in connection with a fake land sale, harassment, and alleged caste-based assault. The petitioners argued the dispute was purely civil. The Court held the gravity of the offences and the specific allegations against the accused prevailed.

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Petitions filed for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS were dismissed; the petitioners are denied bail.

Abbu Narender Vs State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8109 AND 8228 OF 2025

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8109 OF 2O25:

¶8

Between :

¶9

Abbu Narender, S/o, Venkataiah, Aged.48 years, Occ. Business, R/o, H. No. 4-9717, Hanuman Street, lncherla, Jangalapally Village, lVlulugu I\4andal and District.

¶10

Irlaraborna Sampath, S/o. Nagaiah, Aged. 45 years, Occ, Business, R/o H. No. 10-37, Near Anganwadi Centre, Prem Nagar, lVlulugu lVlandal and District.

¶11

...Petitioner/Accused No. 2 and 3

¶12

AND

¶13

1 State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RespondenUProsecution

¶15

2 Bhargavi Porika, W/o B.Sandeep, D/o Harjinayak, Aged 29 years, Occ. Home maker, R/o 12-5511 , Rangaraopalle , Mulugu l\rlandal.

¶16

(R-2 impleaded as per court order dated 14.07.2025, vide l.A.No.1 of 2025, made in CrLP No.8'109 of 2025)

¶17

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 Petitioners/Accused No.2 and 3 on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. of 2025 of P.S.Narsampet, Warangal Distrtct on such terms and conditions as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of .justice.

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8228 OF 2O25:

¶19

Between :

¶20

Gandrakota Sudheer,, S/o, Jambaiah, Age 39^years, Occu Agriculture, R/^o H. No.9-35-5/4/F, lt/lulugu Village, Mandal and District.

¶21

...Petitioner/Accused No. 1

¶22

AND

¶23

1 The State of Telengana,, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State Of Telangana

¶24

2 Bhargavi Porika, Wo B.Sandeep, D/o Har.linayak, Aged 29^years, C,cc. Home maker, R/o 12-5511, Rangaraopalle , [/lulugu^[\ilandal.

¶25

..Respondent

¶26

Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court^may be pleased to enlarge the Petttioner on anticipatory bail in Crime No.259 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Narsampet, Warangal Drstrict.

¶27

These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusit'tg the [Vemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurnents of $ri Gundala Kamalakar, Advocate for the Petitioners in CRLP No.8109 of 2025, I\ilr.P.Sravan Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner in CRLP lt,.lo.8228 of 2025 and It/r.Syed Yasar [/amoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri U.Shanthi Bhushan Rao. ,Advocate for the Respondent No 2

¶28

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶29

f] TIIE IION'EBLE SFTI JIJSTICE J.SREENIVAS FTAO CtrLIMInIAL PETITION Nos.S 109 and 822a of 2C)25

¶30

COMMON ORDER:

¶31

Criminal Petition No.8109 is filed bv the petitioners / accused Nos.2 and 3, and Criminal Petition No.8228 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner/ accused No.1, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sarrhita, 2023 (ktr short, 'tlNSS') secking anticipatory bail in connection with crime No.259 of 2025 on the file of the Station House Officer, Narsarnpet Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 308(5), 126(2), 74, 71.1 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, 19a9. Hence, these two criminal petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this cornrnon ordcr.

¶32

The case of prosecution in brief is that on 23.06.2025 at 21.OO hours the de facto cornplainant Porika Bhargavi lodged a cornplaint with ttre police alleging that her father gave lald to an extent of Ac.O-34 guntas rn Sy.No.2SalA/2 and O-10 guntas 1n Sy.No 259 / A/2, to her at the tirne of her marriage and registered

¶33

in 2O2l in her name. Dr.rc to some farlily reasons, she wanted to se1l Lhat 1and. On 19.O4.2O24 accused Nos.1 to 3 approached her and rnade an agreernent ir-r the narne of accused No.l to buy thc land for Rs. 1,OO, )O,OOO/- and paid an ad.vance amount of Rs.S Lakhs. LaLer, they paid Rs.61,OO,OOO/- tn instalments wisc to the corrLplainant. A total of Rs.66 lakhs was paid to the cornplainallt. WLrenever she asked about the rcmaining amount, they are not giving any rcsponse- Later on 03.04.!1025, accused persons got the land rcgistered in favortr- of Kalva Dhushyanth Reddy, who is thc son-in-ler.r' of Elalaji Educational Institutions Chairman: Dr. A.Rajendra Prasad. But they did not pay the remaining arnount to the cornplainant. On 19.06.2025, the accr-rsed persons told the cornplainant that they will givc the rn:)ney. So, the cornplainant along with her husband Sandeep and frrther Porika Harbya Naik went to Pavani Nursing Florne owner Dr. Rajendra Prasad I-Iorne at Nasampet. 'i[/hile he had the been paid an amount o[ Rs.4l ,5O,OOO,/- to cornplainant, A1 Sudheer intermpted and tock the amount frorn hirn. Later, thc accused gave the arnor-rnt bag trt the cornplainant. Then, the cornplainant took the bag and turned toI their home in her car and when thev reached

)

.//'

f.,

the turning point of Bus Stand at Narsampet, accused Nos.l to 3 stopped her car and Sudheer took ttte money bag from her ald abused her involving her caste "Lambadi Lanja Munda" and pushed hcr away. The other two persons hold the cornplainant's husband and father tightly. Then, the accused persons flew in their car bearing No. AP 09 CW OB28 by saying that this money belongs to them and threatened them with dire conseqlrences that they will kil1 her and her farnily merlbers if they ask about that rnoney. The accused persons lormed a gang in Mr-rlugr-r District, and br-rying the lands frorn Triba-ls and deceiving thern by taking the money frorn them. Later, she went into depression and took sleeping tablets.^-lhus, she reqr-rested to take necessary action against the accused persons. Based on the above said cornplaint, the present crirne was registered for thc aforcsaid offences

¶38

Heard Mr.G.Kamalakar, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.8109 of 2025, Mr.P.Sravan Kurnar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8228 of 2025, Mr.U.Shanthi Bhushan Rao, Iearned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned

¶39

¶40

Additional Pubiic Prosecutor appearing for respon dent No. 1-State.

¶41

Learned counscl for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners Lrave not committed any oflence and they were falsely irnplicatcd in the present CT LIN(] The allegations made in thc complaint are pr.rrrily civil in natr.rre. Hence tlre ingredients of Section :rO8(5) of BNS a.re not attracted against the petitioner s and other offences levelled against the petitioners are punisLrable with irnprisonment below seven years. At the instance of the de facto cornplainant, thc police have i.nplicatecl the petitioners for the oflence under Section 308(5) of BNS with an intention to avoid the procedurc to bc folirrr,ved r-rnder Section 35(3) ol BNSS. They lurther sutrrritted that the petitioners nevcr abused the dc facto complainant in the narne of her caste. Even according to trc allcgations made in the cornplaint, the de facto cornplaillant execruted the sale deed in favour of Kalva Dushya.nth Flecldy ancl she tras received the amount frorn Dr.A.Rajr:ndra Prasad Reddy. Petitioners never received the a1legt:d amour:rt of Rs.41,50,OOO/- frorn Dr.Rajendra Prasad Re:ddy nor they handed over the said arnount to the de facto cornplainant

¶42

¶43

(

¶44

and thereafter, they have forcibly ta.ken the arnor.rnt frorn the de facto complainant. If the petitioners failed to pay the balance sale consideration, she ought to have approach the cornpetent civil Court

¶45

4 .l They further subrnrtted that even according to the allegations rnadc in the cornplaint, the alleged incident took piace ot 79.06.2025 at l2-OO hours, whereas the de facto^{cornplainantlodged the cornplaioton 23.06.2025 at} 21-OO hours. Though Lhere is no such incident^was occurred, LLle de facto corrrp)ainant lodgcd the cornplaint with an intention to harass the petitioners and she has not given any reasons lor the said delay in lodging the complaint. The petitioners arc re ady and willing to cooperate with the investigation and they wiil abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner

¶46

4.2 In strpport of their contention, they relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Cor-rrt in Shajan Skaria vs. The State of I(erala and anottrer (Crirninal Appeal No.2622 of 20241, dated 23.04-2024, contending that this Court is having power to grant anticipatory bail in respect of the offences registered under the SCs/ STs

(POA) Act, 1989.

f^-.,

Per contra, learned counsel for respond ent Nct.2 f de facto^cornplai nant subrrritted that the pr:til,ioners harre cornmitted thc grave offence. initially re,jpcndent No.2 executed the agreement of sale in favor.rr o.. accusec. No. 1 on 19.O4.2025. Pursuant to the agreement. accusecl No.1 has paid only part of sale consideration ancl h.e posLponed to pay Lhe balance sale consideration ar)1ount oil one pretext or the other. However, at the irLslancc c>f thc petitioners / accused Nos.1 to 3 on1y, responclent No.2 executed the registered sale deed in favou r of K.Dushyanth Reddy. At the instance of k..Dush.yanth Reddy, they paid an arnounl of Rs.41,5O.OO(I/ and the said arnor-rnt was received by accused No.1 in the house of Dr.Rajendra Prasad Reddy. Thereafter, accttsecl No.1 given the said amount when llte c1e factr> L:ornplair-rant along with her husband and her father werc travelling in a car, the accrlsed persons stopped their vehicle and fo;-cibly taken the above said arnount from the har-rd s of tlie de facto^cornplainant and abused her in the narne of her caste and accused Nos.2 and 3 supported ,accused No.1. Subsequent to registration of the crim,:, petitir>ners

¶51

¶52

(

¶53

threatened tL,e de facto cornplainant to withdraw the complaint lodged by her. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail.

¶54

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor subrnits that the petitioners have cornmitted the grave offence and there are specific and serious allegations levelled against thern and the investigation is under progress. Therefore, the petitioners are not e ntitled for grant ol anticipatory bail.

¶55

Having considered the rival submissions made by the rcspective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that^{the defacto} complainant is owner of the land to^{an extent of Ac' 1.O4} gtrntas covered by Sy.Nos.258/A/2 and²⁵⁹ /A/2^{and she} executed an agreement of sale <tn^{19.O4.2024Lo an extent} of Ac. 1-O4 guntas in favour of^{accusedNo. 1 .The recitals} of the said agreement^shows thal^{accused No. ihas agreed} to pa.y an arnount of^{Rs.1 Crorcper acrc and he paid Rs.5} lakhs towards advance on^{19.04.2024.Dven accordingto} the allegations made^{in the complaint, accused No'1paid} an arnount of Rs.66 lakhs,^{however, he has not paid the} remaining arnount.

¶56

a. The cornplaint reveals^{that when the defacto}

¶57

¶58

complainant demanded for payment of the balance amount, at the instancc of pctitioncrs / a ccur s;c cl Nos. 1 to 3, de facto comltlainant executed the registerecl salc de.ed in favour of I{. Dushyanth Rcddy. There is a sprecific allcgation in thc complaint that at th, instart,:c of subscqr-rent purchaser, Dr.Rajcndra prasad I.leddy in l-ris house, paid an amount of Rs.41,5O,OOO/ and t.he said arrrount was reccivcd by accused No.l and tlrere;rftcr, hc had given thr: saicl amount to the dc factr <.ornplain:rnl. When tl're clcfacto complainant and her huslrancl :urcl zrlso her father while travelling in their car alor-rg with the amo].rnt, the petitioners havc obstmctcd t_hr:ir. vchicle and accused No. t had l.aken the arnolrnt back fi.orn the hartds of the de far:to cornplainant arld accuscd Nos.2 a.nc1 3 supported thr: action of accused No.I . Furl her alle gJation is that accused Nos.2 and 3 hold the husbir nr 1 of cle facto cornplainant tightly and went a\ /ay in their- <:ar :tnc[ also there is another allegation that accuscd Nc,. I abused the de facto complainant ir-r thc name of hcr- cast c. The specific allegation. levelled against the peti. roncrs is; that \ they had takcn huge arnount of Rs.41,SO,CrOO/- frorn the hands of thc dc facto and the said amount yrertaining to sale consideration in rcspect of her [and : tdmcasuring

¶59

/ .1

¶60

¶61

Ac.1-O4 guntas. Even according to the learned Additional

¶62

Public Prosecr.rtor, tLre investigation is under Progress.

¶63

Taking into consideration the above said lacts^and circurnstances and also gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioncrs.

¶64

1 O. Accordingiy, both the Crirninal Petitions^are dismissed

¶65

As a sequel thereto, rniscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this petition stand closed.

¶66

SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL D PUTY REGISTRAR

¶67

//TRUE COPY//

¶68

SECTION OFFICER

¶69

To, 1 The Principal Judicial^{First Class Maglstrateat Narsampet'} 2 The Station House^{officer, Narsampet PoliceStation,WarangalDistrict'} 3 TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtforthestateofTelangana'at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶70