Allowed

Rahul Gaman Jadhav, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Sept 2026CRLP/13722/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed under the BNSS, the High Court of Telangana allowed the petition and enlarged the petitioner-accused No.2 on bail in a cheating case following the arrest and investigation custody of the other accused.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner-accused No.2 enlarged on bail subject to personal bond, local sureties, reporting to SHO on Sundays, and other standard conditions.

Rahul Gaman Jadhav, Vs State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

¶3

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13722 of 2026

¶4

(CNR.No. HBHC010575442026)

DATE: 09.09.2026

BETWEEN:

Rahul Gaman Jadhav

…..Petitioner-Accused No.2

¶9

And

¶10

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶11

…..Respondent-State

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.2 in connection with FIR No.94 of 2026 of CCS Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS, 2023.

¶14

Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent–State.

¶15

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioneraccused No.2 is innocent of the offences alleged against him and he is falsely implicated in the case on the confession of accused No.1. The allegations mentioned in the FIR do not make out a case against the petitioner-accused No.2 and the entire allegations are against accused No.1. Petitioner-accused No.2 is in judicial custody since 27.07.2026, in any event, the petitioner-accused No.2 cannot be connected with the case, as the element of cheating was not made out against the petitioner-accused No.2. There is absolutely no allegation of whatsoever with regard to forging the signatures and fabricating the documents for the purpose of cheating. Entire investigation is completed and prayed to enlarge the petitioneraccused No.2 on bail.

¶17

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that petitioner-accused No.2 is taken into Police custody for two days and the documents are collected.

¶18

Sri Shaik Salauddin, has lodged a complaint before P.S., CCS on 05.05.2026 stating that Srinivas along with his associate V.Suresh, visited his house and induced him to invest an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- in Adani Group, assuring a profit of Rs.20,00,000/- within one month. Believing their representations, the complainant agreed to invest the said amount. Accordingly, he has arranged funds of Rs.40,00,000/- from his savings account, Rs.30,00,000/from Smt.M.Begum, Rs.30,00,000/from

¶19

¶20

Sri Mehboob Ali and invested the same. Basing on the said Complaint, FIR came to be registered.

¶21

Accused No.1-V.Suresh is arrested on 10.07.2026 at 11:10 am and he was remanded to judicial custody.

¶22

Petitioner-accused No.2 is arrested on 25.07.2026 at 12:15 hours and he is produced before the concerned Magistrate on 27.07.2026, since then he is in judicial custody.

¶23

The remand case diary goes to show that respondent has examined altogether 12 witnesses in support of the prosecution case.

¶24

Petitioner-accused No.2 is taken for Police custody for two days and the documents are also seized by the prosecution. It appears from the material that major portion of the investigation is completed and detaining the petitioner-accused No.2 further in judicial custody will not serve the purpose. Hence, petitioneraccused No.2 is entitled for bail. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner-accused No.2 is the resident of Maharastra, if conditions are imposed, will meet the ends of justice and therefore, the petitioner-accused No.2 is enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶25

i. The petitioner-accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two

¶26

¶27

local sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally.

¶28

ii. The petitioner-accused No.2 shall appear before the concerned SHO between 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., on every Sunday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.

¶29

iii. The petitioner-accused No.2 shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.(presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).

¶30

iv. The petitioner-accused No.2 shall not directly or indirectly influence, threaten, or induce any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶31

v. It is made clear that if any of the conditions imposed by this Court are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of the bail.

¶32

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed.

¶33

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶34

closed.

¶35

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J

¶36

Date: 09.09.2026 pss

¶37

¶38

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

¶39

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13722 of 2026 (CNR.No. HBHC010575442026)

¶40

DATE: 09.09.2026

¶41

pss

Rahul Gaman Jadhav, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Gaman Jadhav, v. 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