Allowed

Gattadi Nageshwar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Sept 2026CRLP/14353/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court allowed bail for accused No. 12 in a maternal gambling case, noting a lack of evidence against him apart from confessional statements, while denying bail to accused No. 1 due to lack of pressing need.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed for Petitioner No. 2 (Accused No. 12) with conditions including execution of personal bond and appearance before SHO.

Gattadi Nageshwar Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

¶3

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14353 of 2026

¶4

(CNR No.HBHC010604122026)

¶5

DATED:

¶6

15^th SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gattadi Nageshwar

¶9

Umesh Sravan Ramtake

¶10

... Petitioners-Accused Nos.1 & 12

¶11

And

¶12

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

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 483 of the

¶16

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 12 in connection with Crime No.411 of 2026 of P.S. Armoor, Nizamabad District. The offences alleged against the petitioners-A1 and A12 are under Sections 111(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and 9(1) of T.S. Gaming Act.

¶17

¶18

Crl.P.No.14353 of 2026

¶19

Heard Mr. Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners – A1 and A12 and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent - State.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed the bail petition against the petitioner No.1-A1.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the unnumbered Paras in the remand case diary, the investigating officer has recorded Section 180 BNSS statements of LWs.1 to 7 and also secured the mediators for CDF. The allegations made against the petitioner No.2-A12 is false and baseless. Petitioner No.2-A12 is innocent and law abiding citizen. There are no allegations against the petitioner No.2-A12 under Section 111(1) of BNS, for which the punishment is below seven years, entire investigation is completed and prayed to enlarge the petitioner-A12 on bail.

¶22

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that on the confession of A5 and A9, it came to light that the petitioner - A12 and A13- Dilip Akulwar are operating a matka gambling network from Maharashtra and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶23

Md.Yaseef Arafath, S.I. of Police has lodged a report before P.S. Armoor on 24.07.2026 stating that he received a

¶24

¶25

Crl.P.No.14353 of 2026

¶26

credible information about a person playing matka through his mobile phone. Police has caught hold him, on interrogation he revealed his name as G.Nageshwar-A1. He confessed that with an intention to earn more money in a short period, he along with A2 to A11 were playing matka through mobile phone by betting money. G.Nageshwar is shown as A1, Banda Srikanth-A2, B.Ramesh-A3, P.KishoreA4, Auto Ashok-A5, Kotak Satyam-A6, G.Bhupathi Reddy-A7, Prakash-A8, KUP Madhu-A9, Rajareddy Ranjith-A10 and Suresh-A11. The section of law shown in the FIR is 9(1) T.S.G.A.

¶27

A1-G.Nageshwar and the petitioner No.2-A12 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.07.2026 since then they are in jail. Remand Case Diary goes to show that A2 to A11 and A13 are absconding. In internal page 4 of the remand case diary, it is stated that based on the confessional statement of A5-Auto Ashok and A9-KUP Madhu,

¶28

it came to light that the petitioner No.2-A12 and A13- Dilip Akulwar were operating matka gambling network from Maharashtra. Except the confessional statements of A5 and A9, there is no material to show that petitioner No.2-A12 is operating matka gambling from Maharashtra. Remand Case Diary goes to show that respondent-State has examined 7

¶29

¶30

Crl.P.No.14353 of 2026

¶31

witnesses. No specific overt acts are attributed against the petitioner No.2-A12, hence he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶32

In the result, petition is allowed against petitioner No.2-

¶33

A12 subject to the following conditions:

¶34

i. The petitioner No.2-A12 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two local sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.

¶35

ii. The petitioner No.2-A12 shall appear before the concerned SHO in between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., on every Sunday and Wednesday 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.

¶36

iii. The petitioner No.2-A12 shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).

¶37

iv. The petitioner No.2-A12 shall not directly or indirectly influence, threaten, or induce any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

¶39

Crl.P.No.14353 of 2026

¶40

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.

¶41

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶42

closed.

¶43

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J

¶44

15^th September, 2026

¶45

PLV

¶46

¶47

Crl.P.No.14353 of 2026

¶48

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

¶49

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14353 of 2026

¶50

DATE: 15.11.2026

¶51

PLV

Gattadi Nageshwar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gattadi Nageshwar 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