Subscribe

Latest › Telangana High Court › Criminal › Bail & Anticipatory Bail › 1 October 2026

Telangana High Court

Telangana HC grants bail to five accused in SC/ST Act murder case; refuses A5 and A8 as petition not maintainable

Court
High Court for the State of Telangana
Date of judgment
1 October 2026
Case
CRLP/14571/2026
Parties
Nimmala Shashikala Vs The State of Telangana
Bench
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
Outcome
Dismissed

Summary

The Telangana High Court, by a common order of Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, granted regular bail on conditions to accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 in a murder case also invoking the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, holding that since the charge sheet had been filed they were entitled to bail. The Court dismissed the petition so far as it concerned accused Nos. 5 and 8, holding that their regular bail petition was not maintainable in view of Section 14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, which provides an appeal to the High Court against an order of the Special Court granting or refusing bail.

The petitions were filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.117 of 2026 of P.S. Haliya. The offences alleged are under Sections 103 and 61(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Crl.P.No.14568 of 2026 was filed by A4, Crl.P.No.14571 of 2026 by A1 to A3, A5 and A8, and Crl.P.No.15032 of 2026 by A7.

The case began with a complaint lodged on 17.05.2026 by the second respondent, who alleged that A1 to A3 and their family members quarrelled with his sister, threatened that they would harvest the palm oil fruits at any cost and, if obstructed, would kill his sister and her daughter, and carried out the threat. The police filed a charge sheet on 31.08.2026, now numbered Spl. SC.No.133 of 2026. Earlier bail applications before the Special Court and this Court had been dismissed.

The question before the court

What each side argued

The court's decision

The Court noted the chronology. A1 was arrested on 20.05.2026 and produced for remand on 21.05.2026; A2, A3, A5, A7 and A8 were arrested on 19.05.2026 and produced for remand on 21.05.2026; A4 was arrested on 02.06.2026. All have been in judicial custody since. The police charge sheet of 31.08.2026 was filed against A1 to A8, showing A9 and A10 as absconding, and alleges offences under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS against A1 to A4, A6, A7, A9 and A10. The Court also noted that A6 and A7 had earlier had their bail petitions dismissed on 01.09.2026, and that the filing of the charge sheet on 31.08.2026 had not been brought to the Court's notice at that time.

On A5 and A8, the Court referred to Section 14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, under which an appeal lies to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail. Their bail applications before the Special Court (Crl.MP.No.415 of 2026 and Crl.MP.No.491 of 2026) were dismissed on 31.07.2026 and 25.08.2026 respectively. The remand case diary states that the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(2)(v) of the Act are made out. The Court held that the regular bail petition of A5 and A8 is not maintainable in view of Section 14A.

The Court found Shajan Skaria distinguishable. That case concerned anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the Act, and the Supreme Court there dealt with Section 18 of the Act, not a regular bail petition.

As to the others, the Court said it was conscious that there are two deaths in the case and of the complainant's apprehension that release could affect the confidence and security of the complainant's family and material witnesses and prejudice a fair trial. However, since the investigation is complete and the charge sheet filed, the question of influencing witnesses by A1 to A4 and A7 does not arise, and they are entitled to bail on conditions.

A1 to A4 and A7 were granted bail on these conditions: a personal bond of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nidmanoor, Nalgonda District; appearance before the SHO between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. every Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday until the conclusion of Spl.SC.No.133 of 2026; no involvement in other crimes; no direct or indirect influencing, threatening or inducing of prosecution witnesses; and compliance with Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 480(3) BNSS). The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail on violation. The petition against A5 and A8 was dismissed and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

Precedents referred to

Provisions referred to

Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗

Official source: High Court for the State of Telangana. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

CriminalBailSc/St ActMurder

Related judgments

Telangana High Court ·29 Sep 2026 ·Anticipatory Bail

Telangana HC: anticipatory bail refused to accused who allegedly struck victim's head with iron rod, granted to two co-accused

The question: Should anticipatory bail be granted to all three accused in an assault arising from a land dispute?

The Telangana High Court has partly allowed a petition for anticipatory bail in a land-dispute assault case, refusing it to the accused who allegedly struck the victim on the head with an iron rod and granting it to two co-accused whose custody was not shown to be necessary. Justice N. Tukaramji held that an anticipatory bail petition is not a mini-trial and that parity cannot be applied mechanically merely because the accused are implicated in the same occurrence. The petitioners, Arikala Kumar and two others, are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 204 of 2026 of Havelighanpur Police Station, Medak District, for offences under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 126(2) and 352 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. They sought pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS. According to the prosecution, on 28 August 2026 at about 8 PM, against the backdrop of a land dispute, they wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant's father on his motorcycle and abused him. Accused No. 1 allegedly hit him on the head with an iron rod and accused No. 2 beat him with a stick, causing bleeding injuries. When the mother intervened, accused No. 1 allegedly hit her with the same rod and accused No. 2 also beat her.

Partly allowed CRLP/14306/2026
Gujarat High Court ·29 Sep 2026 ·Bail

Gujarat HC refuses bail in cyber fraud run through 142 bank accounts; economic offence, no parity with employee co-accused

The question: Is the applicant entitled to bail after the chargesheet in a large economic offence involving mule bank accounts?

The Gujarat High Court has refused successive regular bail after chargesheet to a man accused of running a large cyber fraud through 142 bank accounts and 14 fictitious firms, holding that it was a serious economic offence and that he could not claim parity with a co-accused who acted at his behest. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar relied on the Supreme Court's observations in Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pal Gupta on bail in offences of a pecuniary nature, but directed the trial court to expedite the trial and provide legal aid if needed. The applicant, Kalpeshbhai Rajeshbhai Chunilal Jinjuwadia Soni, sought bail under Section 483 BNSS in C.R. No. 11191011260172 of 2026 of DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for offences under Sections 317(2), 318(3) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He has been in custody since 18 June 2026. The investigation is over, the chargesheet has been filed and the prosecution has cited 187 witnesses. He argued that his role was limited to that of a broker and employee who opened bank accounts for a salary of Rs 30,000 a month, that nothing remained to be recovered, and that parity applied with co-accused Pankaj.

Dismissed CR.MA/22324/2026
Delhi High Court ·29 Sep 2026 ·Bail

Delhi HC grants bail in MCOCA drug-syndicate case on parity with sister freed by Supreme Court; Section 21(4) MCOCA met

The question: Is the appellant entitled to bail on parity with her co-accused sister, whom the Supreme Court released in the same prosecution?

The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to Deepa Singh, accused of being part of an organised drug syndicate, holding that after the Supreme Court released her co-accused sister Anuradha in the same case, nothing in the material placed her on a qualitatively graver footing. Justice Sanjeev Narula held that, on broad probabilities, there were reasonable grounds for believing she was not guilty of the MCOCA offences alleged, which satisfied the first limb of Section 21(4) MCOCA, and that the second limb was also met. The appeal was filed under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 against an order of 3 September 2026 of the Special Exclusive Court-13 (MCOCA), Rouse Avenue Courts, rejecting her regular bail. FIR No. 186/2025 of P.S. Sultanpuri followed a raid on 10 March 2025 in which 385.53 grams, gross weight, of heroin and 47.09 grams of Tramadol were recovered. The prosecution invoked MCOCA against an alleged family-run syndicate headed by the appellant's mother, Kusum. The appellant and her sister Anuradha @ Chiku surrendered on 12 September 2025. Anuradha's bail appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 6 January 2026, but on 24 July 2026 the Supreme Court set that judgment aside and directed her release on bail.

Allowed CRL.A./939/2026