Jarugu Raj Kumar, v. The State Of Telangana

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9409 OF 2026 DATE : 02.07.2026 Between :

Jarugu Raj Kumar S/o. Ram Mohan Rao.

...Petitioner/

Accused No.1 And The State of Telangana, Rep.byt its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

... Respondent Complainant

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner/Accused No.1 seeking to enlarge him on bail in S.C.No.685 of 2024 on the file of learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, which arose out of crime No.1374 of 2023. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 302, 506 read with 120 (b) read with 34 IPC 2.

As seen from the record, it is found that when the matter was posted on 09.09.2025 for trial, the

petitioner could not attend the Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. and issued Non-bailable warrants against the petitioner and other accused and remanded them to judicial custody on 16.09.2025.

3.

Heard Sri Sanjeeva Reddy Garlapati, learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.1 and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

4.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not attempted to influence or threaten any witness at any point of time; that material witnesses were already examined by the learned trial Court; that summons were issued to L.Ws.11, 12, 16 and 19, 20 and 21 and those witnesses were panch witnesses and official witness, as such requested the Court to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

5.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same and submits that the very application for bail was dismissed by the learned trial Court on the ground that the petitioner herein threatening the witnesses; that if the petitioner grants bail, there is

every chance of threatening the witnesses and interfering with trial of the case and hence, he prays this Court to dismiss the petition.

6.

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 16.09.2025. As seen from the record, as on today material witnesses were examined and it is posted for the evidence of L.Ws.11, 12, 16, 19, 20 and 21. Considering the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner-accused No.1 subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner-accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

(ii) After release, the petitioner-accused No.1 shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing till conclusion of trial. (iii) After release, the petitioner-accused No.1 not to contact the de facto or any of the witnesses and if he tries to contact the de facto complainant or threaten the witnesses, the Investigating Officer or the de facto complainant are at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

(iv) The petitioner-accused shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480 (3) of BNSS). 7.

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 02.07.2026 YVL