Allowed

Mydatthula Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Sept 2026CRLP/14242/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to an accused under Section 480 BNSS for an offence under Section 108 BNS. Investigation deemed virtually complete; bail granted subject to personal bond, appearance before SHO, and other standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with sureties, appearance before SHO on Sundays for eight weeks, and compliance with statutory conditions regarding witness screeni

Mydatthula Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | 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.14242 of 2026

¶4

(CNR.No. HBHC010599562026)

DATE: 09.09.2026

BETWEEN:

Mudatthula Ramesh.

…..Petitioner-Accused No.1

¶9

And

¶10

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Statioin House Officer, P.S. Kataram, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District, Through the Public Prosecutor, High Court, High Court for the State of Telangana

¶11

…..Respondent-Complainant

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.1 in connection with FIR No.117 of 2026 of Kataram Police Station, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023.

¶14

Heard Sri Kodari Mallikarjun, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent–State.

¶15

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation against the petitioner-accused No.1 is virtually completed and already recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 12, conducted inquest panchanama through LWs.9 and 10 and completed the crime details through LWs.11 and 12 and subjected the body of the deceased to post-mortem examination through LW.13, leaving no pending investigation. Petitioner-accused No.1 is in judicial custody since 04.07.2026. The case arises out of intense domestic friction, the complainant and his family has finalized the marriage of the deceased against her choice by writing the lagna patrika on 24.06.2026 causing the deceased to immense mental agony. Arrest is not punitive but preventive. Petitioner-accused No.1 undertakes to continue his cooperation with the Police and prayed to enlarge the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail.

¶17

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the role played by the petitioner-accused No.1 is depicted in the remand case diary and accused No.2 is still absconding.

¶18

Sri B.Rajaiah, has lodged a complaint before P.S., Kataram on 25.06.2026 stating that his daughter (deceased) marriage was arranged with one Appala Ravinder, resident of Rudraram village and on 24.06.2026 the elders had finalized by writing lagna patrika and the marriage is fixed on 09.07.2026. His daugher-x x x moved friendly with their villager cum distance relative M.Ramesh

¶19

¶20

(petitioner-accused No.1), on knowing the marriage proposal of the deceased, the petitioner-accused No.1 informed the deceased that he will marry her, but the deceased replied that she will marry the person chosen by her parents. Petitioner-accused No.1 along with accused No.2 went to the bridegroom house, showed the closely moved photographs of the deceased with accused No.1, due to which the marriage has been cancelled. Basing on the said complaint, FIR came to be registered.

¶21

Petitioner-accused No.1 is remanded to judicial custody on 04.07.2026. It is stated in the remand case diary that accused No.2-Singanaveni Chandrashekar is absconding.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that notice is issued to accused No.2 to appear before the Police, which is denied by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶23

Petitioner-accused No.1 has filed bail application vide Crl.M.P.No.197 of 2026 before the learned Sessions Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.08.2026 holding that investigation is not completed.

¶24

Remand case diary goes to show that prosecution has examined 16 witnesses in support of the case and that the petitioner-accused No.1 is in judicial custody since 04.07.2026. It appears that the major portion of the investigation is completed and detaining the petitioner-accused No.1 further in judicial

¶25

¶26

custody will not serve the purpose. Hence, petitioner-accused No.1 is entitled to be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶27

i. The petitioner-accused No.1 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 Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhupalpally.

¶28

ii. The petitioner-accused No.1 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.1 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.1 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

¶34

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶35

closed.

¶36

__________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J

¶37

Date: 09.09.2026 pss

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14242 of 2026

¶41

(CNR.No. HBHC010599562026)

¶42

DATE: 09.09.2026

¶43

pss

Mydatthula Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mydatthula Ramesh 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