U. Praveen, v. The State Of Telangana,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.17711 & 17721 of 2025 DATE: 31.12.2025 Crl.P.No.17711 of 2025 BETWEEN:

U. Praveen .....petitioner/accused And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

.....Respondent/complainant Crl.P.No.17721 of 2025 BETWEEN:

Vurimundali Ramulamma .....petitioner/accused

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

.....Respondent/complainant COMMON ORDER These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, respectively, who are arrayed as accused in Crime No.596 of 2025 before the Ghatkesar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 108 read with 62 of BNS and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST POA Act, 2015.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that on 06.11.2025 at about 22:00 hours, a statement was received from Kumari Malli Pujitha, a 21-year-old nursing student, which had been recorded earlier at Neelima Hospital, Jodimetla. She stated that on the same day, while she was attending her

examination at Anurag Nursing College, she felt dizzy and accidentally fell from the third-floor balcony, sustaining injuries to her right hand, right leg, and hip. She was immediately shifted to Neelima Hospital for treatment and expressed her inability to sign due to her injuries. Basing on the said statement, the present crime was registered under Section 125(a) of BNS. Thereafter, the Sections were altered to 69, 108 read with 62 of BNS and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST POA Act, 2015.

3.

Heard Sri M. Sameer Hussain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. Though notice served upon the victim, none appeared on her behalf.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the case. He contended that the averments in the complaint and the statement of the victim clearly show that she had fallen down due to dizziness. The incident took place on 06.11.2025, and the victim had been in

the hospital since then. At no point did she make any allegations against the petitioners before the Police. However, on 17.11.2025, the mother of the victim allegedly improvised the statement only with a view to harass the petitioners. He further submitted that there were no such allegations in the statement of the victim and that both the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation. He contended that petitioner/accused No.1 is a soldier in the Indian Army, Assam Unit, and there is no possibility of his threatening the witnesses or interfering with the investigation. He also submitted that petitioner/accused No.2 is an aged lady, who has to take care of her husband, who is a paralysis patient. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners by allowing these Criminal Petitions. 5.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, stating that the allegations against them are serious in nature. He further submitted that, in view of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail, and therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss these Criminal Petitions.

6.

In the light of the submissions made by both learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the case was initially registered on the basis of the statement of the victim, which did not disclose any allegations against the petitioners for a period of 11 days. It also appears that there was no improvement in the statement of the victim on 17.11.2025, and that she was alive on that day. Further, after the statement of the mother of the victim was recorded, no dying declaration or any additional statement of the victim was recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate. There also appear to be contradictions between the statements of the victim and her mother. Though this may not be the stage to examine the merits of the allegations in detail, prima facie, the material shows that the accusations rest mainly on the statement of the mother of the victim. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: i.

The petitioners shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Ghatkesar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, within two weeks

from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release them on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/-, each, with two sureties, for the like sum each.

ii.

The petitioners shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and co-operate with the Investigating Officer in investigating the case.

iii.

The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer on every Monday between 09:00 a.m, and 05:00 p.m., for a period of eight (8) weeks or till the filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier and thereafter, as and when required.

7.

Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 31.12.2025 SAI

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.17711 & 17721 of 2025 ` Date: 31.12.2025 SAI