Peddinti Rakesh v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K. SUJANA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-12-23. Peddinti Rakesh v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16679 OF 2o2s Between: Peddinti Rakesh, S/o Jalapathi Age 29 years Occ Private employee, R/o H. No 2-81 , Ram Nagar, Tandur , Adilabad, Telanagana ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Telangana, through SHO P. S. Penchikalpet Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad ... RESPONDENT/COM PLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances slated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/ Accused on Anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with F. l. R. No. 87 of 2025, Dl.
O2l12l2O25 on the file of Penchikalpet Police Station, Kumarambheem Asifabad District This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri RAMULU PASUPU LA ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Arun Kumar Dodla the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Sole Respondent . The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FIOR THE STATE OF TEI AITGIIITA AT IITDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SMT WSTICE K. SU. I TNA CRIMINAL PEIITION No. 16679 of 2Oi2; 23'd DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 Between: Peddinti Rakesh PETITIONER The State of Telangana, rep by Public Prosecutor, Telangana, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. tESPIONDENT ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed before this Cor-rt for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner who is arrayecl s accused in Crime No.
87 of 2C25 before the Penchikalpet l,olice Skrtion, Kumarambheem Asifabad District, registered lc I the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(3 and 340(2) of BNS. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the de frr,; o complainant submitted a w,ritten complaint alleging that one Si,r gari Bandaiah s/o Malliah, residcnt o[ Chedwal Village, pench il alpet Mandal, \ \ had purchased land admeasuring Ac. 1. 3O glrntas in Sy. No. 66/ I of Chedwal Village and applied for mutation of the said lard in his favour. It is alleged that the accused demanded and received an amount of Rs. l,00,OOO/- from the said Bandaiah for sanctioning the mutation and subsequently forwarded a purported mutation order through WhatsApp. However, no Pattadar Pass Book was issued. Upon verihcation of office records, it was found that no application was submitted either through the Bhu Bharathi Portal or physically, and the alleged order was neither signed nor issued by the competent authority.
That being so, a complaint was registered against the petitioner for the offences as alleged. 3. Heard Sri Ramulu Pasupula, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the complaint is false, vague and motivated, and the petitioner has no manner of involvement in the alleged offence. He contended that the petitioner was on sanctioned leave from lg. l1. 2025 to 22. 11 . 2025 and has not thereafter resumed duties, which itself casts serious doubt on the allegations. He asserted that the complaint does not disclose the specihc date or time when the petitioner allegedly demanded or received Rs. 1,O0,OOO/-, nor does it stz ie when the fabricated order was sent, rendering the allegations I clehnite and untenable in law.
He averred that no preliminary :nquiry rvas conducted and no explanation was called for from t re petitioner before lodging the complaint. Therefore, he prayed he Court to grant pre-arrest bail to ttre petitioner by allowing t ris Criminal Petition. 5. [rarned Additional Public prosecutor oppc.. :d the bait petition, contending that the allegations against the ;,r:titioner are serious in nature. He contended that the petitioner lz bricated and manipulated official documents in the name o. rhe defacto I complainant, which amounts to a grave oflence of L r :ach of trust \ and misuse of ofhcial position. The fabricated order ;r:nl through ( WhatsApp clearly demonstrates the petitioner,s invo. , emer-rt in the offence. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismisr; thc criminal petition. 6.
Having considered the submissions made by lr ,lh sides and on perusal of the material on record, it is no ed that the allegations against the petitioner are grave, involvinli zrbrication of official documents and receipt of illegal gratificat i,r r. Such acts amount to serious misuse of official position and brr ach of pubiic , I tmst. Therefore, this Court is of the hrm view that grant of bail at this stage may prejudice investigation and enable tampering with evidence. There are no merits in this petition and ttre same is liable to be dismissed. 7 . Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pe nding shall stand closed Sd/- U. SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// C SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The SHO Penchikalpet Police Station, Kumarambheem Asifabad District. 2. The Tahsildar, Penchikalpet Mandal, Komarambheem Asifabad District. 3. One CC to SRI RAMULU PASUPULA Advocate I [OPUC] 4.
Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies PWDL 'ltt HIGH COURT DATED:23112t2025 I IrlE S r4 ( d e () T I t|tfr 1]rt7l 2 * CRLP. No. 16679 of 2025 * . i r lTCH DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PEITITION. l4 lab lq flo
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.