Allowed

Mangali Sridhar alias Siddu v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Sept 2026CRLP/14154/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to a petitioner accused of offences under the POCSO Act and PM Act, holding that the investigation was substantially complete and further detention in judicial custody was unnecessary. Bail was conceded subject to conditions including a personal bond, weekly appearance, and restrictions on influencing witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to weekly appearance and prohibition of influencing witnesses.

Mangali Sridhar alias Siddu Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | 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.14154 of 2026

¶5

(C.N.R No.HBHC010589612026)

¶6

DATED: 09.09.2026

¶7

Between: Mangali Sridhar @ Siddu. And The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Station House Officer Sangareddy Town Police Station Sangareddy Dist., Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶8

...Petitioner-Accused

¶9

...Respondent-State

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

This 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.265 of 2026 of Sangareddy Town Police Station, Sangareddy District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 137 (2) and 64 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Section 3 read with 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

¶12

¶13

BRMR,J crlp_ 14154_2026

¶14

Heard Sri Kasireddy Mohan Chandra Has, learned

¶15

counsel for petitioner – accused and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent – State.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relationship between the petitioner – accused and the victim girl was a consensual love affair for about two years, which fact is borne out by the victim’s own statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS before the Investigating Officer, wherein she has stated that she and petitioner - accused had been in love for the last two years and she voluntarily went to the petitioner’s house on her own and had physical relationship. Petitioner – accused did not lure, entice or kidnap the victim as alleged and the victim girl left on her own. Petitioner – accused is arrested on 14.07.2026, major portion of the investigation is completed and detaining petitioner – accused further in judicial custody will not serve any purpose and prayed to grant bail.

¶17

Notice got issued to the de facto complainant is served proof is filed to that effect.

¶18

¶19

BRMR,J crlp_ 14154_2026

¶20

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that

¶21

statement of the victim is recorded on 16.07.2026.

¶22

Mother of the victim has lodged a report before PS Uppal on 06.07.2026 stating that on 02.07.2026 at about 1:30 PM her daughter informed that she was going to tailor shop and did not return home. The complainant suspected petitioneraccused in connection with her daughter missing. When she tried to contact the said person, it was switched off. Basing on the said report, F.IR came to be registered.

¶23

Petitioner – accused is arrested on 14.07.2026 and he is remanded to judicial custody. Remand case diary shows that the respondent has examined 13 witnesses. Statement of the victim clearly establishes that she voluntarily had sexual relationship with the petitioner – accused with free consent and she herself called the petitioner – accused and they both travelled to Malkapur Crossroads and from there she used another person’s phone to call to petitioner – accused. After his arriving both of them went to Rameshwaram Temple near Mominpet, where they got married.

¶24

Statement of victim girl is recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS on 16.07.2026.

¶25

¶26

BRMR,J crlp_ 14154_2026

¶27

Since major portion of the investigation is completed, detaining the petitioner – accused further in judicial custody will not serve the purpose for the prosecution. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the petitioner – accused is

¶28

entitled for grant of bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶29

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 learned Special Judge for POCSO Cases-cumAdditional District & Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

¶30

ii. The petitioner – Accused shall appear before the concerned SHO between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., on every Sunday for a period of four (4) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation and thereafter, as and when required.

¶31

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).

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

BRMR,J crlp_ 14154_2026

¶35

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.

¶36

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶37

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶38

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J

¶39

Date: 09.09.2026.

¶40

YVL

¶41

¶42

BRMR,J crlp_ 14154_2026

¶43

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

¶44

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14154 of 2026 (C.N.R No.HBHC010589612026)

¶45

Date: 09.09.2026

¶46

YVL

Mangali Sridhar alias Siddu v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangali Sridhar alias Siddu 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