Allowed

Kadiyam Susan Iashwarya David Luther Cronelious K v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/13944/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted interim bail to an accused woman charged under Section 103(1) of the BNS for allegedly stabbing her husband to death. The court observed the gravity of the offense but imposed strict conditions given her status as a single mother.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner-accused enlarged on bail subject to executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, appearing before SHO on Sundays and Wednesdays, and not influencing witnesses.

Kadiyam Susan Iashwarya David Luther Cronelious K Vs The… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13944 of 2026

¶5

CNR.No. HBHC010582892026

¶6

DATE: 08.09.2026

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Kadiyam Susan Iashwarya David Luther Cronelious K

¶9

… Petitioner-Accused And

¶10

The State of Telangana Represented by Additional Public Prosecutor, Through Vanasthalipuram Police Station.

¶11

… Respondent - Prosecution

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This memorandum of Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner – accused on bail in connection with Crime No.1338 of 2026 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Malkajgiri District. The offence alleged against the petitioner – accused is under Section 103(1) and 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

¶14

Heard Sri U.V.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State.

¶15

¶16

BRMR,J Crl.P.No.13944 of 2026

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence mentioned in the remand report does not attract the petitioner – accused who is none other than wife of the deceased, who got married on 11.05.2023 and she is having a two years old boy through her lawful wedlock. Deceased has left his job about three years back and was addicted to alcohol, always fighting with the petitioner – accused who is earning member working in GENPACT in order to run the family as the deceased husband was sitting idle at home. Police has taken the petitioner – accused for police custody and she is the bread winner of the family. Petitioner – accused is remanded to judicial custody on 17.07.2026 since then she is in jail. Police custody application filed by the respondent - state came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2026 and prayed to enlarge the petitioner – accused on bail.

¶18

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that this Court while dismissing the earlier bail petition [Crl.P.No.12818 of 2026] on 14.08.2026 has taken into consideration the gravity of the offence and the role played by her which is depicted in the remand case diary and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶19

LW1 – Sankalp Anand has lodged a complaint before the PS Vanasthalipuram on 16.07.2026, wherein he stated that on 15/16.07.2026 at 11 hours, the deceased David called his aunt

¶20

¶21

BRMR,J Crl.P.No.13944 of 2026

¶22

Shara Raj Kumari, informed her that his wife Ishwarya has stabbed him with knife and then the call is disconnected. Basing on the said complaint FIR came to be registered on the same date. Petitioner – accused is remanded to judicial custody on 17.07.2026 and it is clearly mentioned in internal page No.5 of the remand case diary in unnumbered paragraph No.2 about the manner in which the incident has taken place. Serious allegations are leveled against the petitioner – accused in the complaint as well as in the remand case diary with regard to the incident taken place on 15/16.07.2026.

¶23

Respondent - state has filed an application before the learned Trial Court for grant of police custody of the petitioner – accused for a period of three days. Notice is given to the petitioner – accused in the said application and the learned Trial Court after hearing the prosecution observed in paragraph No.6 of the order that the investigating officer has merely sought police custody on the vague ground of verifying whether any other person was involved in the offence. Such a speculative assertion, unsupported by any prima facie material, cannot be the basis for implicating the third party. No witness has stated that the third party was present at the scene of occurrence, participated in the incident. Observing the same learned Trial Court has dismissed the police custody petition on 31.07.2026.

¶24

¶25

BRMR,J Crl.P.No.13944 of 2026

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner – accused is having son who is aged about two years and he is suffering with seizures who needs attention at this stage.

¶27

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on instructions submits

¶28

that FSL report is awaited.

¶29

Petitioner – accused has filed Criminal Petition No.12818 of 2026 which came to be dismissed on 14.08.2026. The change of circumstances in the investigation is police custody petition filed by the respondent - State came to be dismissed vide dated 31.07.2026. and the petitioner – accused is in judicial custody since 17.07.2026.

¶30

Remand case diary goes to show that 16 witnesses are examined, if conditions are imposed while granting bail will meet the ends of justice. Hence petitioner – accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶31

i. The petitioner – accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayath Nagar, Ranga Reddy Court.

¶32

ii. The petitioner – accused shall appear before the concerned SHO between 10.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m., on every Sunday and Wednesday till filing of charge sheet.

¶33

¶34

BRMR,J Crl.P.No.13944 of 2026

¶35

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

¶36

iv. The petitioner – accused shall not directly or indirectly influence, threaten, or induce any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶37

v. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶38

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶39

Miscellaneous petition/s, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶40

__________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J

¶41

Date: 08.09.2026 Dua

¶42

¶43

BRMR,J Crl.P.No.13944 of 2026

¶44

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

¶45

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13944 of 2026

¶46

DATE: 08.09.2026

¶47

Dua

Kadiyam Susan Iashwarya David Luther Cronelious K v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadiyam Susan Iashwarya David Luther Cronelious K 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