LawSphereX

Inapakuthika Lokesh Varma v. The State of Telangana

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-03-31. Inapakuthika Lokesh Varma v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on...

Judgment text

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: '1062 OF 2026 Between: lnapakuthika Lokesh Varma, S/o l. Vasudeva Raju, age 21 years, Occ Zepto delivery boy, R/oFlat No. 89, Kakatiya Hills, Nizampet, Kukatpally, Medchal- Malkajgiri Dist. N/o Lalacheruvu, Ralamandri, East Godavari Dist,A. P. ..... PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad 2. Modugula RajasekharReddy, S/o Sambi Reddy Modugula, age. 28 yrs, occ. Private Employee, R/o H No. C2-12, Near Chandanagarrailway station, Huda colony, Chandanagar. N/o H No. 1-360, Thodepalli, Undavalli, Guntur Dist of AP- .....

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in FIR No. 1524 of 2025, Dl. 29. 12. 2025 on the file of PS Chandanagar, RangaReddy District, in so far as the petitioner / Accused is concerned l. A. NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in FIR No. 1524 ot 2025, Dl. 29. 12. 2025 on the file of PS Chandanagar, Ranga Reddy District, including appearance and attendance of the petitioner / Accused, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri NEELAM BHARGAVA RAM ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the SRl.

JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGA-II A AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SRE ENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1062 o 12026 DATE: 31. O3. 2026 Between : Inapakuthika Lokesh Varma Petitioner/ Accu sed AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad and another Respondents :ORDER: This criminal pctition has been hled by the pe tirione r/ accusecl seeking to quash the proceedings in F. l. R. Ir ( . 1524 of 2O2S ol Chandanagar Police Station, . e Cyberabad, regist: d lor the offencc under Section 303(2) ol'the Bharatiya Nyaya San- ta,2023. 2. Heard Mr. Ncelam Bhargava Ram, learr r d counsel for the petitioner, ancl Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramaller, learned Additional Public ProsecuLor appearing for respondent No. l r tate. 3. With the consent of both counsel, the :.

jminal pe tition is disposed ol at the admission stage. 4. Learned counsel lor the petitioner submitte : that the petitioner has not committed the offence and he has been i tsely impricated in the present crime based on a confessional statement given in other crimes. He further submitted that the offence tevelled against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years' However, the Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarlk Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (fot short, 'BNSS), the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs' State of Biharl, is proceeding n ith the investigation and the same is contrary to lau'' submitted that 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor the petitioner is a chronic offender' There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner and he is an accused in more than fourteen (14) crimes.

The police have recovered nine (9) vehicles from the possession of the petitioner' When the Investigating Officer attempted to issue notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS' the petitioner evaded receiving the same Hence, the petilioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings in F'I'R No' 1524 of 2025. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of repl1" submitted that the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Ofltcer on or before 13. 04. 2 026 and on such appearance, the Investigating Officer '(20 l4 ) 8 scc {. : J may be directed to follow the due procedure a s contemplated unde: the provisions of the BNSS I I 7 . Havrng considered the rival submis s ons made by thc I I I respective parties and upon perusal of the r taterial available on I i record including remand repor[ and remand cas: diary in Crime No..

i i of 2026 o[ Gachiborvli Police Station, it reveals rhat the petitioner is an accused in fourteen ( 14) crimes involving I milar offence, Even according to the learned counsel for the pcti ioner, the petitioner came to know about the pendency of lhe r'imes when he was arrested rn Crime No. 4 o[ 2026 of Gachibowli ]'olice Station. Thi I l ri offence levelled against the petitioner is unishable with ar li l ll imprisonment below seven years. Even accr> ding to the learnec Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigatinll Officer has followec the due procedure as contemplated under the pr tvision of the BNSS. 8. Taking into consideralion the peculiar far: s and circumstances of the casc, and in view ol the submissions rr r de by the respective parties, the petition er/ accused is directed t( appear before thr lnvestigatrng Officer on or before 13. 04. 2( 26, and on such appearance, the Investigating Ofhcer is directecl .

o issue notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and follow rhe guidelin<:: issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). "",," 9. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to submit a re ply/ explanation along with the documents, which are available rvith him, to the Investigating Officer and he shall cooperate with the investigation. 10. If the petitioner fails to appear before the Investigating Officer, within the stipulated time, the Investigating Officer is entitled to take action against him in accordance with law. I 1. Subject to the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed o[. Miscellancous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGIS //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The I AJCJ Cum lX Additional Judicial Magistrate First ass, Kukatpally Ranga Reddy District 2- The Station House Officer, Chandanagar, Police Station Chandanagar, Ranga Reddy District 3. One CC to SRI NEELAM BHARGAVA RAM Advocate [OPUC] 4.

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies VM/PSL \qr I HIGH COURT DATED:31/03/2026 . iE i -q T4 tor' c (J OIAPA ORDER * CRLP. No. '1062 of 2026 D+. ' /r - DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION . r? (& k"w

Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.