Telangana High Court
Kilari Anand Paul Ka Paul, Dr. K. A. Paul vs The State Of Telangana on 10 September, 2025
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
***
CRIMINAL R.C. No. 46 OF 2024
Between:
Kilari Anand Paul @ KA Paul @ Dr. K.A. Paul, S/o Baranapas, aged
62 years, Occ: Evangelist, R/o 382 Aparajitha Colony, Ameerpet, Hyderabad,
Telangana.
Petitioner/Accused No.9.
VERSUS
1. The State of Telangana, represented by the Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad.
2. Anisilla Beechupaolly, S/o SDayamma, aGed 57 years, Occ: VRO,
Kammireddypally, R/o Manajipeet village, Khilla Ghanpur Mandal,
Mahabubnagar District, Telantgana State.
Respondent/Complainant.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 10.09.2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : 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
2
NTR, J
Crl.R.C. No. 46 of 2024
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
+ CRIMINAL R.C. No. 46 OF 2024
% 10.09.2025
Between:
# Kilari Anand Paul @ KA Paul @ Dr. K.A. Paul, S/o Baranapas, aged
62 years, Occ: Evangelist, R/o 382 Aparajitha Colony, Ameerpet, Hyderabad,
Telangana.
Petitioner/Accused No.9.
VERSUS
1. The State of Telangana, represented by the Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad.
2. Anisilla Beechupaolly, S/o SDayamma, aGed 57 years, Occ: VRO,
Kammireddypally, R/o Manajipeet village, Khilla Ghanpur Mandal,
Mahabubnagar District, Telantgana State.
Respondent/Complainant.
! Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.L. Narasimha Rao,
^Counsel for the respondent(s) : Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, representing
respondent No.1-State.
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. (1979) 3 SCC 4
2. (1977) 4 SCC 39
3. (2019) 7 SCC 515
3
NTR, J
Crl.R.C. No. 46 of 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 46 OF 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397
and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.'),
assailing the order dated 18.12.2023 in Crl.M.P.No. 335 of 2023 in S.C.No.
241 of 2018 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Mahabubnagar.
2. I have heard Mr. G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1-State.
3. The revision petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.9 in the above
Sessions Case, for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302, 379, 404, and
201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC").
During the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Section 227
of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The trial Court, by the impugned order,
dismissed the petition. In doing so, it referred to (i) the statement of the
de facto complainant/Accused No.1 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., (ii)
records of conversations between Accused Nos.1, 7, and the
NTR, J
petitioner/Accused No.9, and (iii) analysis of call data records, which
allegedly indicated the petitioner's involvement in the conspiracy.
4. Case facts as pleaded by the petitioner:
On 31.01.2010, the dead body of K. David Raj, brother of the
petitioner/Accused No.9, was discovered in an Innova vehicle bearing
Registration No. AP 28 AY 9899, parked on NH-7. The police registered
Crime No.10 of 2010. During the course of investigation, the statements of
certain suspects were recorded, which allegedly disclosed a conspiracy
involving Accused Nos.1 to 8. Consequently, those accused were arrested
and remanded to judicial custody in February 2010.
Subsequently, based on a report lodged by Accused No.1
(the de facto complainant) against the petitioner/Accused No.9, the Ongole
Police registered Crime No.229 of 2012 for offences punishable under
Sections 307 and 120-B of the IPC. During the investigation of that case, the
alleged involvement of the petitioner/Accused No.9 in the earlier crime
(Crime No.10 of 2010) purportedly came to light. In that context, Accused
No.1 gave a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., asserting that the
petitioner/Accused No.9 had instructed him to arrange for the killing of
Mr. David Raj in furtherance of the petitioner's missionary objectives. Based
NTR, J
solely on this statement, the petitioner/Accused No.9 was implicated in
Crime No.10 of 2010, arrested, and subsequently released on bail.
It is further pleaded that, in the meantime, the Ongole Police filed a
closure report in Crime No.229 of 2012, citing lack of evidence against all
the accused, including the petitioner/Accused No.9. Moreover, Accused
No.1, who had earlier made the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,
retracted before the Magistrate, asserting that he had named the petitioner
only under police coercion. Notwithstanding these developments, the trial
Court proceeded to take cognizance in Crime No.10 of 2010 and continued
the proceedings. This compelled the petitioner/Accused No.9 to file the
present application seeking discharge.
5. Submissions of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner:
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was
implicated nearly two years after the occurrence, and that too without the
discovery of any fresh material or evidence. The original investigation in
Crime No.10 of 2010 did not disclose any role or involvement of the
petitioner. The subsequent Crime No.229 of 2012, which formed the very
basis for implicating the petitioner, was itself closed for want of evidence.
Furthermore, the principal witness, namely Accused No.1 herein, whose
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was relied upon, has subsequently
NTR, J
retracted and categorically deposed before the Magistrate that he had
named the petitioner only under pressure and coercion exerted by the
police. Despite these circumstances, two charge sheets were filed
simultaneously, without any additional material or new evidence against the
petitioner. It is argued that the trial Court failed to properly evaluate these
vital aspects, thereby rendering the impugned order unsustainable.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had already
challenged the cognizance order passed in Crime No.229 of 2012 before the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.R.C. No.1816 of 2017. By order
dated 04.04.2025, the High Court allowed the revision and set aside the
cognizance, holding that there was no sufficient material to proceed against
the petitioner. The High Court took particular note of the sworn statement of
the de facto complainant/Accused No.1, wherein he affirmed that his earlier
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was made under police coercion and
was not voluntary. In these circumstances, it is submitted that a similar
interference is warranted in the present case, and the petitioner is entitled to
discharge.
6. Submissions of the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor:
On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits
that the petitioner's role in the conspiracy has been revealed through the
NTR, J
judicial statement of a co-accused under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as well as
conversations between the petitioner and other accused. It is further
submitted that conspiracy is generally established only upon a
comprehensive evaluation of the evidence at trial. At the stage of framing
charges, the Court need only determine whether a prima facie case exists,
and in the present case, the trial Court has rightly found such material. Any
premature interference, it is argued, would prejudice the prosecution and
hinder the course of justice. Hence, dismissal of the revision is sought.
7. I have carefully perused the materials on record.
8. Before examining the case facts, it is appropriate to note the scope of
judicial power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal &
Anr., (1979) 3 SCC 4, laid down guiding principles for exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 227 Cr.P.C., which may be summarized as follows:
a) The Judge, while considering the question of framing of charges, has
the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of determining whether a prima facie case has been made
out against the accused.
NTR, J
b) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion
against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court
would be fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with the
trial.
c) The test of whether a prima facie case exists necessarily depends on
the facts of each case. However, by and large, if two views are
possible and the Judge finds that the evidence gives rise only to a
suspicion, and not a grave suspicion, against the accused, the Judge
would be justified in discharging the accused.
d) In exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the Judge, being
a senior and experienced judicial officer under the scheme of the
Code, cannot act merely as a post office or mouthpiece of the
prosecution. The Judge must consider the broad probabilities of the
case, the total effect of the evidence and documents produced, and
any fundamental infirmities appearing therein. However, this does not
permit the Judge to undertake a roving enquiry or to weigh the
evidence as if conducting a full-fledged trial.
9. In the light of these principles, the materials relied upon by the
prosecution in the present case require careful scrutiny.
NTR, J
10. According to the charge-sheet, the case against the
petitioner/Accused No.9 is set out as follows:
i) The petitioner was arrested in Crime No.229 of 2012 (Ongole
Police Station) registered under Sections 120-B and 307 IPC, based on a
report filed by Accused No.1. It was alleged therein that the petitioner
attempted to eliminate Accused No.1 to prevent permanent disclosure of his
involvement in the murder of his brother, David Raj. During investigation,
the statement of Accused No.1 was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
before the Magistrate in the presence of mediators, allegedly disclosing the
petitioner's complicity.
ii) The investigation further claimed that the petitioner had disputes
with the deceased regarding control over GUM Charity City, and that
supporting materials and documents were collected in this regard. The
Investigating Officer also claimed to have obtained a compact disc (CD)
containing recorded conversations between Accused Nos.1, 7, and 9, along
with the Section 164 statement of Accused No.1.
iii) It was further alleged that Accused No.1, during enquiry,
detailed his prior association with the petitioner while both were in jail in
connection with a fake currency case, and that upon instructions from the
NTR, J
petitioner, meetings were held in Delhi and telephonic conversations
ensued.
iv) Based on these materials, the petitioner was arrested and
interrogated. However, the petitioner consistently denied his involvement as
well as the authenticity of the alleged telephonic conversations.
v) On the prosecution's request, the Court permitted voice
comparison analysis. However, the notice was subsequently set aside, with
a direction to provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and the matter
remains pending. Meanwhile, Accused No.1 herein (de facto complainant in
Crime No.229 of 2012) produced a hard disk on 10.06.2012, allegedly
containing relevant audio files. The hard disk was forwarded to the Forensic
Science Laboratory (FSL), but it was reported that no material could be
retrieved as the device was punctured and non-functional.
vi) Nevertheless, the CD provided by the Investigating Officer was
analyzed, and the prosecution alleged that its contents indicated the
petitioner's involvement in hiring Accused No.1 to eliminate his brother.
Additionally, call data records (CDRs) and tower location details were
claimed to show that the petitioner was in regular contact with Accused
Nos.2 to 6. On this basis, the prosecution alleged that the petitioner
conspired to murder his brother.
NTR, J
11. The prosecution primarily relies on three sets of materials:
(i) The statement of Accused No.1 (de facto complainant) recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. in Crime No.229 of 2012;
(ii) The compact disc allegedly containing telephonic conversations between
the petitioner and co-accused; and
(iii) The hard disk purportedly containing further call data records produced
by Accused No.1.
12. Although the prosecution initially relied on the Section 164 Cr.P.C.
statement of Accused No.1 to implicate the petitioner, the fact remains that
the subsequent final report in Crime No.229 of 2012 concluded that the
alleged conversations were irrelevant and not useful for investigation.
Moreover, Accused No.1 himself made a sworn statement before the
Magistrate as hereunder:
"33. The crucial witness LW-2, was also examined by the
learned Magistrate about taking cognizance, in his sworn statement LW-2
clearly deposed as under:-
"...I was present in Mourya Hotel at Ongole on pursuance of my
real estate work. By the time the C.I. of police came to the hotel and lifted
me and taken me to Ongole Taluk Police Station along with my friends. I
have a car bearing No. AP 16 TV 9651. The police searched my car and
enquired my purpose of visit. I disclose my purpose of visit that I came to
Ongole for real estate work. Simultaneously some of the people came from
NTR, J
Nellore to Ongole to pursue their real estate work. They are also called by
police and enquired. I was detained by the Police in the police station itself.
It was happened on 18-05-2012. On very next day also the Police did not
allow me go out. My friends also detained in police lockup along with me.
My mobiles were taken by the C.I. of Police. On 19-05-2012 I was taken to
the DSP Ongole. He asked me that why K.A.Paul asked him to encounter.
I replied that I do not know why K.A.Paul targeted me that I came to Ongole
on perusal of my real estate work. DSP further stated me that K.A.Paul
offered 1 crore rupees to C.I. by name Srinivasan for encountering me for
that we refused to do so even they requested to hand over me if encounter
is not possible. The DSP further enquired the disputes between myself and
K.A.Paul. I disclosed that I do not have any issues with K.A.Paul in fact I
was very much laver to him but expressed my anxiety why K.A.Paul tried to
kill me. The Police did not shown Spy Camera and voice recorder of
K.A.Paul. The DSP further informed me that brother-in-law of K.A.Paul by
name Yesupadam expressed apprehension against me and K.Paul in that
juncture I was caught by the Police. I stated that I do not have any grudges
with K.A.Paul and his brother-in-law. I was just extended my services to
them. After enquiry by the DSP again we were brought to the police
station. In spite of that the police did allow us to go. Mid-night 12.00 clock
the police shifted to CCS police station. C.I. warned me that K.A. Paul
requesting to encounter me for that he refused to do so and he further
informed at least K.A.Paul requested to hand over me to his followers if
such thing is happened I was killed by them inhumanly. The Police further
apprehended me if I made a statement against K.A.Paul I will be free out of
the case otherwise warned me many cases foisted against me. As there is
no other way I have stated before the Hon'ble Judge against the accused
during my 164 Cr.P.C. statement. As stated by the C.I. of Police I depicted
before Court. After came out I came to know that K.A.Paul was arrested.
In fact myself and K.A.Paul was not responsible for murder of his brother
and we were unnecessarily suspected and implicated in this case. On the
same day the police released us by obtaining some of the signatures in
white paper."
NTR, J
Therefore, the de facto complainant categorically affirmed that his
earlier implication of the petitioner was made under police coercion. The
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, while considering Crl.R.C. No.1816 of 2017,
had observed that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance against the
petitioner based on such infirm material, and accordingly set aside the
cognizance. This renders the earlier Section 164 statement wholly unreliable
and legally insufficient to proceed.
13. The compact disc allegedly containing conversations between the
petitioner and co-accused. The transcript recorded in the charge sheet reads
as hereunder:
1) "Phone conversation between A-1 and A-9 in which A-9 informed A-1 that he
was staying in Inter Continental Hotel, Connaught place, Delhi, which is beside
the Parliament and asked the A-1 to come over to Inter Continental Hotel on
19-12-09 by 7 am, without informing to anybody even to A-7 Catherine Seethal.
Then the A-1 told to A-9 that he created a document of accident, admitted in
the hospital to evade his appearance in fake currency case and after meeting
him would return back on 20-10-10. The conversation in between them was
lasted for about 06:20 minutes. The arrival and departure details of A-9
K.A.Paul corroborates that A-9 arrived Delhi on 18-12-09 and departed Delhi
Airport on 23-10-09.
2) In another call, in which A-9 had long conversation for about 24:19 minutes with
A-7, wherein A-9 told to A-7 that A-1 not attending the works properly and not
even attending meetings. Also not lifting his mobile phones. In the month of
August he spent 48 hours in four days by staying with her and given
Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.4-½ lakhs. A-9 asked her to send A-1 to Madras and
NTR, J
meet Bishop and he would bear all the expenses. A-9 also asked A-7 to keep
away from A-1, snap sexual contacts with him and even not respond to his
calls. He also arranged to send A-7 abroad investing Rs.60,000/- only by
putting his image at risk. Also A-9 told that he stayed in Mumbai for A-7 from
Feb-10 to Feb-13 and did whatever she told and ate whatever she served.
Further informed that he would be arrested by Police sooner or later and A-1
should stay in Madras till the charge-sheet is filed against him.
3) In another call in which A-9 had long conversation for about 16:13 minutes
with A-7 wherein A-9 told that his health was not good in spite of taking pills.
He arranged Rs.3 lakhs instead of 4 lakhs for the marriage of Sony (sister of A-
7) by 8th . He also told that he sent Rs.65,000/- towards dowry and marriage
expenses of Sony. Further the A-1 should stay in Madras with Bishop till the
charge sheet is filed against him and he would bear all the expenses.
4) In another call in which A-9 had brief conversation for about 3:48 minutes with
A-1 wherein A-9 conveyed birthday wishes to A-1's son Mani and prayed for
that boy. After that he also had conversation with A-7 Seethal and enquired
about the charity and it's maintenance. Also alerted A-1 to take care of him.
5) In another conference call between A-1, A-7 and A-9 in which A-9 had long
conversation for about 49:12 minutes with A-1 and A-7, wherein A-9 informed
that yesterday (on 2-11-10) he had conversation with his sister-in-law Smt.
Estheri Rani and her son Stephen for about 3 hours. He asked A-1 to sell his
Beemli lands for 10 crores and share the amount equally as he was not having
money. His brother's family members blamed for the murder of his brother by
engaging him (A-1) offering money and they had recording evidence and the
same was told to his sister-in-law by him (A-1). Then A-1 refuted the
allegations and they were all lies. A-9 warned his sister-in-law with dire
consequences as he already prayed for the death of 7 persons including Y.S.R.
and David Raj, who were died due to his cursing and warned her not to compel
him to pray for her death. This indicates that he intended his brother's death
and hatched conspiracy with other accused. He further maintained in his call
that Estheri Rani (LW-8) along with her son are planning to murder him and A-1
NTR, J
and warned A-1 to be careful. In the said call A-1 boasted himself that he will
do anything for A-9 and prior to the murder David Raj told him (A-1) that he
prepared CDs mentioning that A-9 and A-1 are responsible for his death in
case of his death and the CDs would be sent to TV-5 and TV-9. This indicates
that the deceased apprehending danger from A-1 and A-9. A-1 swear on his
son and Bible, created panic among A-9 and deceased that both are trying to
eliminate each other and Parvathipuram gang is engaged by David Raj to
eliminate A-9. This indicates the accused A-1 cast his evil eye on Gum City
and it's riches, he got A-9 to play his hands land eliminated David Raj with his
accomplices.
6) Call from A-9 to A-7 on her mobile No. 9535405955 which maintains that the A-
9 is very much perturbed and afraid of arrest. His requesting A-7 to prevail
upon A-1 to shift his family in order to (1) to save his (A-1) life, (2) to protect his
(A-9) image until the charge sheet is filed and (3) to escape from these people
in case there is 1% of chance of them attacking on him and to avoid arrest and
he instructed A-1 to hide till the charge-sheet is filed as Estheri Rani is trying to
arrest him. He further urged A-1 and A-7 to leave the place (Hyderabad and
Gum City) to go somewhere, hide there till the charge-sheet is filed. He
categorically stated that A-1 said that he (A-9) has done David Raj (to death)
and the repeated visiting of A-1 to Gum City creating doubts in the minds of his
(A-9) parents and friends that he (A-9) has involved in the death of David Raj
through A-1 and his accomplices.
7) In another two calls between David Raj and A-1 in which the A-1 win over
David Raj and ensured David Raj to play into his hands by promising him to
furnish strange information including video footage showing that his son
Soloman Raj is trying to eliminate him (deceased). Like that he won over the
deceased, made him to come alone to Life Style building parking place and
eventually killed the deceased with his associates on 30-1-2010."
14. On careful consideration of the record, it becomes necessary to
assess whether the telephonic conversations relied upon by the prosecution
NTR, J
prima facie disclose a conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC to commit the
murder of the deceased David Raj.
15. It is well settled that conspiracy requires proof of an agreement
between two or more persons to commit an illegal act, or a legal act by
illegal means. Direct evidence of such agreement is seldom available; it may
be inferred from surrounding circumstances. Nonetheless, there must exist
material indicating a meeting of minds towards the commission of the
alleged crime. Mere suspicion, however strong, or expressions of hostility
and ill-will, cannot substitute the legal requirement of grave suspicion
sufficient to frame a charge. [Prafulla Kumar Samal, (Supra); State of Bihar
v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39].
16. Turning to the alleged conversations,
1). Conversation between A-1 and A-9 at Inter Continental Hotel,
Delhi: The content reveals secrecy in their meeting and evasion of legal
proceedings by A-1. However, there is no reference whatsoever to the
deceased or any plan to eliminate him.
2.&3). Conversations between A-9 and A-7: These largely pertain to
financial transactions, personal relations, and instructions to maintain
NTR, J
distance from A-1. They are interpersonal in nature and bear no nexus to
the commission of the offence alleged.
4). Conversation between A-9 and A-1 (birthday wishes): This is
entirely innocuous and does not even remotely touch upon the
commission of the alleged offence.
5). Conference call between A-1, A-7, and A-9: This conversation
contains expressions of hostility by A-9 towards his sister-in-law Estheri
Rani and references to his deceased brother. He is stated to have uttered
curses and warnings, and there is mention of the deceased leaving CDs
apprehending danger from A-1 and A-9. While this conversation
demonstrates family discord and the deceased's apprehension, it falls
short of evidencing any agreement between A-1 and A-9 to commit the
crime. Expressions of animosity, even if strong, do not ipso facto
constitute a conspiracy unless coupled with a concerted plan of action.
6). Call from A-9 to A-7 regarding arrest: The petitioner is stated to
have expressed fear of arrest and requested that A-1 go into hiding. This
reflects his anxiety of implication but cannot be construed as evidence of
a criminal conspiracy.
NTR, J
7). Conversations between the deceased and A-1: These reveal that
A-1 lured the deceased into a vulnerable situation and eventually killed
him with his associates. However, these calls implicate A-1 alone. No
material emerges from them to connect A-9 to the murder.
17. On a cumulative reading of these conversations, what emerges is
suspicion of strained family relations, allegations of financial disputes, and
instances of personal hostility. However, there is no clear material
evidencing a meeting of minds between A-9 and the co-accused to eliminate
the deceased. The conversations, at best, establish motive and suspicion,
but as repeatedly emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, motive
without corroborative material cannot by itself found a charge of conspiracy
[State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515].
18. Accordingly, it must be held that the conversations placed on record,
even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose a prima facie case of
conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC against the petitioner. To draw such an
inference would be to substitute conjecture for proof, which is impermissible
at law.
19. The hard disk allegedly provided by Accused No.1 was conclusively
reported by the FSL as non-functional, with no retrievable data. Thus, no
reliance can be placed on this material.
NTR, J
20. The materials relied upon by the prosecution, namely, the Section 164
statement, the compact disc of conversations, and the hard disc are either
legally inadmissible, inherently unreliable, or devoid of incriminating value. At
best, they raise suspicion, but not grave suspicion, against the petitioner. As
held in Ramesh Singh, (Supra), suspicion, however strong, cannot take the
place of proof necessary to proceed to trial.
21. While motive arising from disputes over property and management of
GUM Charity City is suggested, motive by itself, without corroborative
evidence pointing towards guilt, is inadequate to frame charges under
Section 227 Cr.P.C. Continuing proceedings on such weak and infirm
material would amount to an abuse of the process of law and a violation of
the petitioner's right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
22. In light of the settled principles under Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra)
and subsequent precedents, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to
place before the Court any legally acceptable material giving rise to grave
suspicion against the petitioner/Accused No.9. The trial Court, in failing to
appreciate these infirmities and proceeding to reject the discharge
application, committed an error warranting interference in revision. In this
view, the impugned order is liable to be and is accordingly set aside. In
NTR, J
consequence, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is
allowed, and the petitioner/Accused No.9 stands discharged.
23. Resultantly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The
petitioner/Accused No.9 is discharged for the offences alleged against him in
S.C.No. 241 of 2018, pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Mahabubnagar.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 10.09.2025
svl
