Telangana High Court
Smt. Bandi Padmamma vs The State Of Telangana on 1 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4164 of 2026
01.04.2026
Between:
Smt Bandi Padammama,
And others.
PETITIONERS
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep by Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State
of Telangana, at Hyderabad.
RESPONDENT
ORDER
The present Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.4 to 6 in Crime No.10 of 2026 before the Kodandapur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 118(1), 115(2) read with 3(5) of BNS.
2
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.02.2026 at 12:30 hours, LW‑15 received a Telugu written petition from Bandi Pavani W/o Bandi Hari Babu, aged 25 years, resident of Shaikpally Village, stating that due to previous disputes over agricultural land, her uncle Bandi Krishna and his family members frequently quarrelled with them. On 11.02.2026 at about 5:30 PM, while she and her husband were milking cows, a quarrel ensued when Kurva Narsappa was asked to slow down his vehicle. Immediately, Bandi Krishnudu, Bandi Sreekar, and Bandi Bhaskar attacked her husband with sticks, causing bleeding injuries. When her father‑in‑law Bandi Ramudu intervened, he too was beaten on the head with a stick, sustaining bleeding injuries. When she attempted to rescue them, other family members namely Bandi Padma, Bandi Gouthami, and Bandi Revathi also assaulted her, causing injuries to her forehead, back, and legs.
3. Heard Sri KB. Narasimhulu, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State. 3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent women, falsely implicated due to family land disputes. He contended that A1 to A3 have already been arrested and remanded, material objects recovered, and custodial interrogation of these petitioners is not required. He asserted that no specific overt act is attributed to them, that they were not present at the scene. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow this criminal petition.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioners stating that the complaint clearly mentions the participation of the petitioners in the assault, that they joined with A1 to A3 in attacking the defacto complainant and her family members, and that their role in the offence cannot be ignored. It was contended that granting bail at this stage may hamper the investigation. Therefore, he prayed this Court to dismiss this Criminal Petition.
6. Having regard to rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the statements of the witnesses would show that these petitioners 4 also bet the deceased with sticks. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be observed that Section 103(1) of BNS is not applicable to petitioners. However, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit to direct the petitioners to surrender before the concerned trial Court, and file a regular bail petition. On filing of such petition, the trial Court is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
7. With the above directions, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 01.04.2026 PT