Telangana High Court
Mr. Pothuganti Pandu vs The State Of Telangana on 2 September, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10549 OF 2025
ORDER :
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS') by the petitioner/A.3 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Cr.No.197 of 2025 of Parigi Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 126(2), 109, 118(2) and 352 r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
2. The facts of the case are that on 10.07.2025 at about 14:00 hours, the Parigi Police received a complaint from Mrs. Pothuganti Laxmi W/o Ramulu stating that earlier that day, at around 11:00 hours, she, along with her mother-in-law and sister, had gone to their agricultural field to sow seeds and while they were working, their neighbors namely Pothuganti Venkataiah, Pothuganti Nirmala, Pothuganti Manjula, Mamatha, and Ganji Swapna arrived at the field, verbally abused them in filthy language, and physically assaulted them. Pothuganti Venkataiah allegedly kicked both the complainant and her mother-in-law, and beat her mother-in-law on the ear, causing bleeding injuries. Following the assault, the accused -2- persons left for the village. The complainant then informed her father-in-law, Pothuganti Ananthaiah, over the phone. Immediately, her husband Pothuganti Ramulu, brother-in-law Pothuganti Raju, and father-in-law proceeded towards their field and on the way the accused allegedly obstructed them and assaulted them with sticks. As a result, the complainant's husband sustained bleeding injuries to his head, and the others suffered injuries to their legs and hands. The complainant therefore, requested that legal action be initiated against the accused persons. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.
3. Heard Sri Thomas Joseph Lloyd, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is falsely implicated in this case without verifying the veracity of complaint, that petitioner was not present at the time of incident, that the complainant has not mentioned the name of this petitioner in her complaint, and that there are land disputes between the complainant and accused persons and only to settle the said issues, false case has been foisted against the petitioner herein and other accused. There are no specific allegations against this petitioner. Further, A.6 who is the wife -3- of this petitioner was already granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court. As such, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that all the accused with common intention wrongfully restrained the husband, father-in-law and brother- in-law of complainant and assaulted them, due to which, they received grievous injuries not only them, but the accused also beat the complainant and her mother-in-law at their fields. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss this bail application.
6. Considering the submissions made by both learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the alleged offences attributed to the petitioner are serious in nature. The victims in the present case have sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.3 and his name finds mention in the charge sheet. Although learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are no specific allegations against him and that accused No.6 was granted bail by the trial Court, it is noted that A.6 was granted bail on medical grounds, having delivered a female child on 27.07.2025. In view of the severity of the allegations against the petitioner and the nature of the injuries sustained by the -4- victims, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :02.09.2025 Rds