Telangana High Court
Dr. Athaluri Alias Pachipala Namratha, vs The State Of Telangana, on 24 November, 2025
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA,
HYDERABAD
***
Criminal Revision Case No. 849 of 2025
Between:
Dr. Athaluri @ Pachipala Namratha, W/o. Sri Venkata Krishna
Prasad, Aged: 64 years, Occu: Doctor, H.No. 10-3-81, Arya
Samaj Colony, Secunderabad, Pin Code - 500 003.
Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, through PS, CCS,
Hyderabad.
Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 850 of 2025
Between:
Dr. Athaluri @ Pachipala Namratha, W/o. Sri Venkata Krishna
Prasad, Aged: 64 years, Occu: Doctor, H.No. 10-3-81, Arya
Samaj Colony, Secunderabad, Pin Code - 500 003.
Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, through PS, CCS,
Hyderabad.
Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 851 of 2025
Between:
Dr. Athaluri @ Pachipala Namratha, W/o. Sri Venkata Krishna
Prasad, Aged: 64 years, Occu: Doctor, H.No. 10-3-81, Arya
Samaj Colony, Secunderabad, Pin Code - 500 003.
Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, through PS, CCS,
Hyderabad.
Respondent
2 NTR,J
Crl.R.C. Nos. 849 to 852 and 857 of 2025
Criminal Revision Case No. 852 of 2025
Between:
Dr. Athaluri @ Pachipala Namratha, W/o. Sri Venkata Krishna
Prasad, Aged: 64 years, Occu: Doctor, H.No. 10-3-81, Arya
Samaj Colony, Secunderabad, Pin Code - 500 003.
Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, through PS, CCS,
Hyderabad.
Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 857 of 2025
Between:
Dr. Athaluri @ Pachipala Namratha, W/o. Sri Venkata Krishna
Prasad, Aged: 64 years, Occu: Doctor, H.No. 10-3-81, Arya
Samaj Colony, Secunderabad, Pin Code - 500 003.
Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, through PS, CCS,
Hyderabad.
Respondent
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 24.11.2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
3 NTR,J
Crl.R.C. Nos. 849 to 852 and 857 of 2025
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
+ CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos. 849, 850, 851, 852 & 857 OF 2025
% 24.11.2025
# Between:
Dr. Athaluri @ Pachipala Namratha, W/o. Sri Venkata Krishna
Prasad, Aged: 64 years, Occu: Doctor, H.No. 10-3-81, Arya
Samaj Colony, Secunderabad, Pin Code - 500 003.
Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, through PS, CCS,
Hyderabad.
Respondent
! Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Nagamuthu, learned Senior
Counsel
^Counsel for the respondent(s) : Mr. M. Ramachandra Rao, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor.
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
Tupakula Appa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2002 ALT 1 76)
Viswanathan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2019 ALT 1 755)
Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Criminal Petition
No. 6965 of 2023, dated 09.10.2023)
Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam [(2017) 15 SCC 67]
Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab [(2020) 10 SCC 616]
4 NTR,J
Crl.R.C. Nos. 849 to 852 and 857 of 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos. 849, 850, 851, 852 & 857 OF 2025
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, and Mr. M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
2. Since these criminal revision cases have been filed by the
petitioner seeking identical reliefs concerning related pending crimes,
they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(i) Crl. R.C. No. 849 of 2025 has been filed under Sections 438 and 442
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "the BNSS"),
challenging the order dated 04.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 2959 of
2025 in Crime No. 100 of 2025 (Old Crime No. 155 of 2025) registered for
offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4), 336, and 111
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "the BNS"), by the
learned XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.
(ii) Crl. R.C. No. 850 of 2025 has been filed under Sections 438 and 442
of the BNSS, challenging the order dated 04.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.
No. 2955 of 2025 in Crime No. 102 of 2025 (Old Crime No. 157 of 2025)
5 NTR,J
Crl.R.C. Nos. 849 to 852 and 857 of 2025
registered for offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4),
335, 336, 340, and 111 of the BNS, read with Sections 39(1) and 40 of
the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, by the learned XII Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.
(iii) Crl. R.C. No. 851 of 2025 has been filed under Sections 438 and 442
of the BNSS, challenging the order dated 04.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.
No. 2958 of 2025 in Crime No. 99 of 2025 (Old Crime No. 154 of 2025)
registered for offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4),
335, 336, 340, and 111 of the BNS, read with Sections 39(1) and 40 of
the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, by the learned XII Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.
(iv) Crl. R.C. No. 852 of 2025 has been filed under Sections 438 and 442
of the BNSS, challenging the order dated 04.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.
No. 2954 of 2025 in Crime No. 101 of 2025 (Old Crime No. 156 of 2025)
registered for offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4),
335, 336, 340, and 111 of the BNS, read with Sections 39(1) and 40 of
the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, by the learned XII Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.
(v) Crl. R.C. No. 857 of 2025 has been filed under Sections 438 and 442
of the BNSS, challenging the order dated 06.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.
6 NTR,J
Crl.R.C. Nos. 849 to 852 and 857 of 2025
(SR) No. 12899 of 2025 in Crime No. 95 of 2025 (Old Crime No. 150 of
2025 of Gopalapuram Police Station, Hyderabad) registered for offences
punishable under Sections 61, 308(2), 316, 318(4), 335, 336, 340, and
111 of the BNS, by the learned XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hyderabad.
3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the revision petitioner,
who is the accused in the aforementioned crimes, filed petitions under
Section 187(3) of the BNSS seeking default bail. The learned Trial Court,
in Crime Nos. 99 to 102 of 2025, dismissed the said bail applications,
observing that the statutory period for filing the charge sheet had not yet
expired and that the authority relied upon by the petitioner was factually
distinguishable. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred these
criminal revision cases.
Submissions of the Petitioner:
4.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is implicated in several crimes registered on the file of
Gopalapuram Police Station, all of which arise out of the same or
substantially similar transactions. The petitioner was initially taken into
custody in Crime No. 147 of 2025 on 27.07.2025. It is contended that
since the offences alleged in the connected crimes are analogous in
nature and stem from the similar set of facts, the period of custody in the
7 NTR,J
Crl.R.C. Nos. 849 to 852 and 857 of 2025
first case ought to have been reckoned as deemed custody in the other
cases as well.
4.2. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that, once the petitioner
was in judicial custody in one of the related cases, the investigating
agency was under a duty to reflect the remand period uniformly across all
such similar crimes. The failure of the respondent police to do so, by not
showing the petitioner as being in custody in the present cases, has
resulted in a procedural irregularity affecting the petitioner's statutory right
under Section 187(3) of the BNSS to seek statutory (default) bail.
4.3. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court had, in Crime
Nos. 94, 96, and 97 of 2025, granted statutory bail to the petitioner on the
same reasoning, having accepted the petitioner's readiness to furnish
sureties and bail bonds. However, in the present set of cases (Crime
Nos. 99 to 102 of 2025), the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that
the date of first remand-i.e., 27.07.2025 was decisive for computing the
period of custody for the purpose of determining whether the statutory
period for filing the final report had expired.
4.4. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of this
Hon'ble Court in Tupakula Appa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2002
ALT 1 76) and Viswanathan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2019 ALT 1
755), wherein Coordinate Benches of this Court held that when multiple
8 NTR,J
Crl.R.C. Nos. 849 to 852 and 857 of 2025
crimes are registered against the same accused by the same police
station, the period of custody in one case must be treated as deemed
custody in other related crimes, even in the absence of formal arrest in
those cases.
4.5. Relying on these principles, learned Senior Counsel contended
that, as the allegations in all the crimes are identical or substantially
similar, the date of first remand in Crime No. 147 of 2025 must be taken
as the effective date of remand for the present cases as well.
Consequently, the statutory period prescribed under Section 187(3) of the
BNSS must be computed from that date, and since that period has
already lapsed without the filing of a charge sheet, the petitioner has
acquired a statutory right to bail. Accordingly, it was prayed that the
petitioner be released on statutory bail in these revision cases, by
applying the ratio laid down in the aforementioned precedents.
Submissions of the Respondent-State:
5.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed
the revision petitions, contending that the petitioner is involved in serious
and heinous offences of considerable gravity, and that the investigation is
still in progress owing to the complexity and multifaceted nature of the
transactions involved. It was submitted that although the crimes appear
to be connected by the common element of surrogacy-related fraud, each
9 NTR,J
Crl.R.C. Nos. 849 to 852 and 857 of 2025
of them pertains to distinct transactions, involving different victims and
circumstances. Therefore, each case must be investigated and
adjudicated on its own merits and factual background, without being
conflated with the others.
5.2. While the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that
the several crimes registered against the petitioner relate to surrogacy
arrangements, it was asserted that the petitioner had allegedly deceived
multiple victims under separate contractual arrangements to obtain
money fraudulently. Hence, it was argued that each crime necessitates
independent investigation, including the examination of separate
witnesses, evidence, and financial trails, and therefore, the remand and
custody of the petitioner must be assessed independently for each crime.
5.3. It was further submitted that, during the course of investigation, the
cases were transferred from the Gopalapuram Police Station to the
Special Investigation Team (Crime Control Station) owing to their
specialized and sensitive nature. The transfer of records between
investigating agencies and the consequent change of jurisdiction of the
Court concerned resulted in certain administrative delays in regularizing
the arrest and remand proceedings. Accordingly, the prosecution argued
that the petitioner's custody in each case was formally regularized on
different dates by the competent Court, and therefore, for the purposes of
computing the statutory period under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, the
10 NTR,J
Crl.R.C. Nos. 849 to 852 and 857 of 2025
relevant date must be reckoned from the date of such regularization and
not from the date of first arrest in a separate crime. In support of the
above contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered in Nara Chandrababu Naidu v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, (Criminal Petition No. 6965 of 2023,
dated 09.10.2023).
5.4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that under
Section 187(1) and (3) of the BNSS, read with the principles embodied in
Sections 167(2) and 309 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, it is incumbent upon the accused, if he claims to be in deemed
custody in multiple cases, to inform the Magistrate concerned of the
pendency of such other cases and seek appropriate orders for
consolidation or adjustment of remand. In the present instance, however,
the petitioner did not make any such representation before the learned
Magistrate to treat his custody in one crime as deemed custody in others,
and therefore, cannot now claim the benefit of statutory bail on that basis.
5.5. Finally, it was argued that, given the gravity of the offences, the
ongoing and intricate nature of the investigation, and the distinct factual
basis of each case, the date of regularization of remand alone should be
taken as the commencement point for calculating the statutory period.
Consequently, since the investigation remains within the permissible time
11 NTR,J
Crl.R.C. Nos. 849 to 852 and 857 of 2025
limit reckoned from that date, the petitioner is not entitled to default
(statutory) bail, and the present revision cases are liable to be dismissed.
Consideration of the Court:
6. I have carefully perused the material available on record and
considered the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
7. The petitioner is facing criminal proceedings arising from
allegations relating to acts committed under the guise of surrogacy
arrangements. According to the prosecution, the allegations represent
three distinct facets of fraudulent conduct. However, it is not disputed
that all these facets pertain to transactions concerning surrogacy and are
therefore connected in substance.
8. Be that as it may, the petitioner seeks statutory (default) bail under
Section 187(3) of the BNSS, which is pari materia with Section 167(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The law governing the
grant of statutory bail is well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a
catena of judgments, has held that the right to statutory bail is
substantive, indefeasible, and arises automatically upon expiry of the
statutory period prescribed for completion of investigation, where the
investigating agency fails to file the charge sheet within such time. This
12 NTR,J
Crl.R.C. Nos. 849 to 852 and 857 of 2025
right, being an integral component of personal liberty under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, cannot be curtailed or diluted by procedural
irregularities or by arbitrary exercise of discretion either by the
investigating agency or the Courts. Once the conditions under Section
187(3) BNSS / Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. are satisfied, the Court is bound to
grant bail, as the provision embodies a legislative safeguard against
prolonged pre-trial detention.
9. The essence of the settled legal position, therefore, is that the
entitlement to statutory bail must be determined based on the maximum
punishment prescribed for the offence and the expiry of the statutory
period for investigation. Once that period lapse, the accused acquires an
absolute right to bail, irrespective of the merits of the case.
10. Accordingly, the central issue for consideration in the present
matter is whether the essential conditions prescribed by law have been
duly satisfied and whether the statutory period stipulated for the grant of
bail has duly elapsed, thereby entitling the accused to seek statutory bail.
11. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody
since 27.07.2025. The charge sheets in the present crimes have not yet
been filed, and the investigation is still pending. The crucial issue,
therefore, is whether the petitioner's custody in one case can be treated
13 NTR,J
Crl.R.C. Nos. 849 to 852 and 857 of 2025
as deemed custody in other cases, where no formal arrest or remand was
shown.
12. The term "custody" contemplates the physical control or presence
of the accused under the jurisdiction of the Court. As observed by this
Court in Tupakula Appa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, such custody
may extend by implication to other connected crimes arising out of the
same police station and set of facts.
13. In Tupakula Appa Rao's case, this Court, at paragraphs 19 and 20,
held inter alia that where an accused is in custody in one case, and
multiple cases arise from the same police station or the same set of facts,
failure of the authorities to formally show arrest in each case, when such
arrest could and ought to have been shown, cannot prejudice the
accused. The Court observed that if the omission is attributable to the
negligence of the authorities, the custody in one case shall be deemed
custody in all connected cases, thereby protecting the liberty of the
accused. The Court further explained that in such instances,
administrative lapses must not defeat the substantive rights of the
accused under the procedural law.
14. This principle has been subsequently followed and reaffirmed by
this Court in Viswanathan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it was
reiterated that the concept of deemed custody applies in cases involving
14 NTR,J
Crl.R.C. Nos. 849 to 852 and 857 of 2025
multiple offences registered by the same police station and arising out of
a common factual foundation. It was clarified that even if the
investigating agency failed to regularize the arrest formally, the accused
is deemed to be in custody for the purpose of computing the statutory
period under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. / Section 187(3) BNSS.
15. In contrast, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor cited
judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Nara Chandrababu
Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Court, after considering
the earlier precedents in Tupakula Appa Rao and Viswanathan, held that
the doctrine of deemed custody would not apply where the crimes arise
from distinct transactions, are registered by different police stations, and
necessitate separate investigations. Thus, that case was decided in the
peculiar factual circumstances distinguishing it from cases where the
offences arise from the same police station and are factually interlinked.
16. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident that all the
crimes herein were originally registered by the same police station,
Gopalapuram Police Station, and even according to the prosecution, the
petitioner's first remand was effected by that police station. The
allegations against the petitioner are all centered around the common
theme of surrogacy-related offences, forming part of a continuing course
of conduct. Although the investigation was later transferred to the Special
Investigation Team (S.I.T.), such administrative transfer cannot absolve
15 NTR,J
Crl.R.C. Nos. 849 to 852 and 857 of 2025
the investigating agency from complying with the mandatory procedural
requirements under the BNSS/Cr.P.C.
17. The record clearly indicates that the petitioner was already in
judicial custody as of 27.07.2025, and that the subsequent offences stem
from the same series of transactions/chain of events. Consequently, as
the petitioner was in the custody by the date of registration of First
Information Reports (FIRs), it was incumbent upon the investigating
authorities to show the arrest and remand of the petitioner in all the
connected cases from the respective dates of registration of the FIRs.
Their omission to do so not only reflects a lack of due diligence and
non-application of mind but also runs contrary to the settled position of
law governing computation of the statutory period for the purpose of
default bail. As observed above, it is a well-established principle, as
enunciated by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of
Assam [(2017) 15 SCC 67] and Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab
[(2020) 10 SCC 616], that the right to statutory or default bail under
Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 187(3) of
the BNSS) is an indefeasible right accruing to the accused upon the
expiry of the prescribed period of detention, if the charge sheet has not
been filed. The computation of such period must necessarily commence
from the date of the first remand or the initial custody, and not from any
subsequent or artificially regularized date of arrest.
16 NTR,J
Crl.R.C. Nos. 849 to 852 and 857 of 2025
18. Furthermore, the failure of the accused to inform the Magistrate
regarding the pendency of other connected cases cannot be construed as
acquiescence or waiver of this statutory right. Such omission does not
clear the investigating agency or the Magistrate of their duty to correctly
account for the remand period in accordance with law. The responsibility
to ensure proper computation of custody lies squarely upon the
prosecution and the Court concerned.
19. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court erred in not treating the date of
registration of the first FIR as the relevant date for the purpose of
computing the statutory period under Section 187(3) of the BNSS. The
approach adopted defeats the very object of the statutory safeguard
envisaged under the provision, which is to prevent arbitrary or prolonged
detention without completion of investigation.
20. In this position, the prosecution's contention that the statutory
period must be computed from the date of regularization of arrest in each
case is found to be untenable. The trial Court, therefore, erred in not
considering the date of the first information report as the relevant date for
computing the statutory period under Section 187(3) of the BNSS.
21. Applying this reasoning, the relevant dates of registration of the
FIRs are as follows:
17 NTR,J
Crl.R.C. Nos. 849 to 852 and 857 of 2025
i. Crime No. 95 of 2025 - 01.08.2025
ii. Crime No. 99 of 2025 - 03.08.2025
iii. Crime Nos. 155 and 156 of 2025 - 05.08.2025
iv. Crime No. 157 of 2025 - 07.08.2025
22. Counting from these dates up to the filing of the bail applications,
the petitioner had been in custody for 95, 93, 91, 89, and 81 days,
respectively. In Crime No. 102 of 2025, the statutory period of 90 days
had clearly expired without the filing of a charge sheet, by the date of the
impugned order. Accordingly, the trial Court ought to have granted
statutory bail, and its refusal to do so constitute an error apparent on the
face of record. Once the conditions under Section 187(3) BNSS are
satisfied, discretion has no role, and the Court is bound to uphold the
legislative mandate protecting personal liberty.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioner is entitled to statutory (default) bail in all the
crimes under revision. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case Nos. 849 to
852 and 857 of 2025 are allowed.
The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to the following
conditions:
a) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with two
18 NTR,J
Crl.R.C. Nos. 849 to 852 and 857 of 2025
sureties for the like sum in each crime to the satisfaction of the
learned XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.
b) The petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation or tamper
with the evidence collected by the prosecution in any manner.
c) The petitioner shall be available for interrogation and cooperate
with the investigating officer as and when required by the
investigating officer, in the related crimes.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 24.11.2025
Note: (i) LR Copy to be marked.
(ii) Registry is directed to communicate the copy of the order
to the XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.
(iii) Issue CC by tomorrow i.e. 25.11.2025.
B/o.
svl
