[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Vemula Hanmanthu Reddy vs State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4152 of 2026
DATE: 08.04.2026
BETWEEN:
Vemula Hanmanthu Reddy
.....petitioner/accused No.5
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
at Hyderabad.
.....Respondent/complainant
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for
grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as
accused No.5 in POR No.54-3/20 on the file of the Kollapur
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.4152 of 2026
Forest Range, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 20(i)(c)(ii), (iii), and (iv) of the Telangana State Forest
Act, 1967, and under Sections 9 read with 52, 27, 29, 30, 31,
and 51(1)(c) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.12.2025 at about
07:00 p.m., the defacto complainant, who was the Forest Range
Officer, Kollapur, while on patrolling duty in Ankilpenta (N)
beat, noticed smoke emanating from a cave (Devuni Bokka).
Upon inspection, 11 persons were allegedly found attempting to
blast the cave in search of treasure. It was alleged that Accused
Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 11, along with the petitioner/Accused No.5,
had trespassed into a protected forest area with weapons and
explosives, causing damage to the reserve forest, wildlife
habitat, and ecological balance. Accordingly, a case was
registered for the above said offences.
3. Heard Sri J. Rajashekhar Reddy, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M.
Ramachander Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.
SKS,J
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was falsely implicated and had no connection with the
alleged offence and that the allegations were baseless,
concocted, and made with mala fide intention. He further
submitted that, as per the confession statements and remand
report, only 10 persons were involved and arrested, and the
petitioner was not among them. He contended that there was
no material evidence against the petitioner, and the
investigation was conducted without proper verification.
Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the
petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner was
involved in a serious offence relating to destruction of forest and
wildlife habitat and that the accused persons were found at the
scene attempting to blast a cave in a protected area, thereby
causing ecological damage. He contended that the allegations
were grave in nature and involved offences under special
statutes, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to
anticipatory bail. Therefore, at this stage, granting of pre-arrest
SKS,J
bail to the petitioner does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court
to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it
appears that the allegations pertain to serious offences involving
damage to protected forest land and wildlife habitat. The main
allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with other
accused, trespassed into a reserve forest area and attempted to
blast a cave in search of treasure, thereby causing potential
harm to the ecology and biodiversity. As seen from the record,
there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the
material part of the investigation is not yet completed.
Considering the same, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to
grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to
be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 08.04.2026
SAI
