[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Pinninti Rachana Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 9 April, 2026
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
***
WRIT PETITION No. 1573 OF 2018
Between:
1. Pinninti Rachana Reddy, W/o. Late P. Prabhaker Reddy, Aged about
25 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o. H.No.3-101, Pochammawada, Alair
Mandal, Tangutoor, Nalgonda, Telangana - 508101.
2. Pinninti Venkatamma, W/o. Ram Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occu:
Housewife, R/o. H.No.3-101, Pochammawada, Alair Mandal,
Tangutoor, Nalgonda, Telangana - 508101.
Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Home Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
2. The Director General of Police, DGP Office, Opp. Ravindra Bharthi,
Lakdi-Ka-Pool, Khairathabad, Hyderabad - 500 004.
3. The Commissioner of Police, Siddipet Town, Siddipet District,
Telangana State.
4. The Station House Officer, Police Station Kuknoorpally, Siddipet
District, Telangana State.
Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 09.04.2026
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
2
NTR,J
W.P. No. 1573 of 2018
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
+ WRIT PETITION No. 1573 OF 2018
% 09.04.2026
# Between:
1. Pinninti Rachana Reddy, W/o. Late P. Prabhaker Reddy, Aged about
25 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o. H.No.3-101, Pochammawada, Alair
Mandal, Tangutoor, Nalgonda, Telangana - 508101.
2. Pinninti Venkatamma, W/o. Ram Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occu:
Housewife, R/o. H.No.3-101, Pochammawada, Alair Mandal,
Tangutoor, Nalgonda, Telangana - 508101.
Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Home Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
2. The Director General of Police, DGP Office, Opp. Ravindra Bharthi,
Lakdi-Ka-Pool, Khairathabad, Hyderabad - 500 004.
3. The Commissioner of Police, Siddipet Town, Siddipet District,
Telangana State.
4. The Station House Officer, Police Station Kuknoorpally, Siddipet
District, Telangana State.
Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. Sujith Jaiswal,
Learned counsel for the petitioners.
^Counsel for respondents : Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Home,
appearing for all the respondents.
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
Babubhai v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 12 SCC 254];
State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights
[(2010) 3 SCC 571].
3
NTR,J
W.P. No. 1573 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No. 1573 OF 2018
DATE: 09.04.2026
Between :
Pinninti Rachana Reddy and another.
... Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana, Represented by its Home
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana State, and
three others.
... Respondents.
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or
Writs, Order or Orders calling for records relating to Crime No. 110
of 2017 Dated 14.06.2017 on the file of Respondent No.4 Police
Station as the same is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against to the
principles of natural justice and consequently to transfer the Case
with FIR No. 110/2017 Dated 14.06.2017 on the file of P.S.
Kuknoorpally, Siddipet District to CBCID or any other independent
impartial special investigating agency and pass such other and
further order or orders..."
NTR,J
2. I have heard Mr. Sujith Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners,
and Mr. Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing
on behalf of the respondents.
Petitioners' Case
3.1. The brief facts, as set out by the petitioners, are that the husband
of petitioner No.1 and son of petitioner No.2, namely late P. Prabhakar
Reddy, who was serving as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Police Station
Kukunoorpally, Siddipet District, allegedly committed suicide on
14.06.2017 during the afternoon hours at the Police Headquarters,
Siddipet, by shooting himself on the forehead with his service revolver.
On the same day, a complaint was lodged by one Bhaskar Reddy, the
brother-in-law of petitioner No.1, before Kukunoorpally Police Station
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, resulting in registration of
FIR in Crime No.110 of 2017. In the said complaint, a strong suspicion
was expressed against the then Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Gajwel, alleging that he had abetted the commission of suicide.
3.2. It is further the case of the petitioners that although the incident is
stated to have occurred between 12:00 noon and 12:30 PM, by the time
the family members reached the scene, certain crucial developments had
already taken place. It is alleged, based on reliable information, that
NTR,J
immediately after the incident, the said ACP entered the police quarters,
secured and screened the crime scene, and removed a suicide note
purportedly authored by the deceased, which allegedly contained the
reasons for his death.
3.3. The petitioners further allege that the said ACP, abusing his official
position, cleared the premises, locked the house from inside, tampered
with material evidence, and removed valuables such as rings and chains
from the body of the deceased. It is also contended that the deceased
had been subjected to continuous harassment and coercion by the said
superior officer, who allegedly compelled him to perform illegal and
unofficial acts, thereby causing severe mental distress. The deceased is
stated to have repeatedly expressed his anguish over such harassment,
ultimately leading him to take the extreme step.
3.4. The petitioners further contend that the investigation conducted by
the police authorities is biased and lacks fairness, as it seeks to shield the
accused officer. Despite serious allegations, no effective or impartial
investigation has been undertaken. The request of the petitioners for
transfer of investigation to the CBCID has not been considered, and they
have been excluded from the investigative process, thereby giving rise to
a reasonable apprehension of collusion and miscarriage of justice.
NTR,J
Submissions of the Petitioner:
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the death of the
deceased is not a simple case of suicide, but rather the result of
harassment and coercion by the then ACP, Gajwel. It is alleged that the
said officer, by abusing his position of authority, compelled the deceased
to engage in unlawful activities, and that the resulting mental agony drove
the deceased to commit suicide. It is further contended that the said ACP
not only abetted the suicide but also interfered with the investigation by
tampering with the crime scene, removing the suicide note, and taking
away valuable articles from the deceased's body. According to the
petitioners, these circumstances give rise to grave suspicion regarding his
involvement. The petitioners also allege that the police department,
acting in collusion with the said officer, has deliberately diverted the
investigation by attributing the cause of death to extraneous factors,
including alleged personal issues of the deceased.
4.2. It is further submitted that, despite repeated requests for transfer of
the investigation to an independent agency, the same have been
arbitrarily ignored. The petitioners contend that a fair investigation is an
integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The failure of the State machinery to ensure a fair
investigation, therefore, amounts to a violation of fundamental rights,
NTR,J
warranting intervention by this Court. It is also pointed out that, although
a pending investigation was indicated in the counter affidavit, a final
report was filed only after the hearing of the present writ petition
commenced, thereby giving rise to suspicion. Accordingly, a direction is
sought for transfer of the investigation to an independent agency.
Submissions of Respondents:
5.1. Learned Government Pleader for Home, relying upon the affidavit
of respondent No.3 (Commissioner of Police, Siddipet), submits that upon
receiving information regarding the suicide, the brother of the deceased
rushed to the spot and reported that the deceased had earlier expressed
distress due to certain difficulties allegedly arising from interactions with
the ACP, Gajwel. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.110 of 2017
was registered under Section 306 IPC, and the investigation was
entrusted to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sangareddy Division.
5.2. The postmortem examination revealed that the cause of death was
shock and hemorrhage due to a firearm injury. Material objects were
seized and forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for ballistic
examination. Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded
during the course of the investigation. It is further stated that, on
12.06.2017, the deceased was allegedly involved in an incident after
NTR,J
consuming alcohol, which led to the registration of another case (Crime
No.563 of 2017) relating to the suicide of one Sirisha. According to the
respondents, the deceased, apprehending implication in the said case
and the consequent damage to his reputation and service career, was
under mental distress and committed suicide. It is submitted that the
allegation regarding missing valuables was found to be false, as the same
were recovered from the house of the deceased's brother.
5.3. It is further stated that the allegations made against the ACP were
referred to the Forensic Science Laboratory; however, nothing
incriminating was found. Accordingly, a final report has been filed. The
respondents assert that the investigation was conducted fairly and in
accordance with law, and they deny all allegations of bias or
manipulation.
Consideration by the Court
6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the
material on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the deceased died due to a gunshot injury
inflicted by his service weapon, and that a case under Section 306 IPC
NTR,J
was registered. However, the core issue pertains to the fairness,
impartiality, and credibility of the investigation.
8. The petitioners have made serious allegations of harassment,
abetment, and tampering of evidence by a senior police officer. The
respondents, on the other hand, attribute the suicide to personal distress
arising out of a separate criminal case. These competing versions
necessitate a deeper and impartial scrutiny.
9. It is a settled principle of law that "justice must not only be done but
must also appear to be done." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babubhai
v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254 and State of West Bengal v.
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC 571 has
held that a fair, impartial, and unbiased investigation is an essential
component of Article 21 of the Constitution.
10. Further, in cases where allegations are made against police
officials themselves, investigation by the same agency may give rise to a
reasonable apprehension of bias. Even in the absence of proven
mala fides, reasonable likelihood of bias is sufficient to warrant transfer of
investigation.
NTR,J
11. In the instant case, the allegation regarding removal of the suicide
note is of significant evidentiary value; allegations of tampering with the
crime scene and removal of valuables raise serious doubts; the
investigation has remained pending for a considerable period; the
accused officer belongs to the same department conducting the
investigation. These factors cumulatively create a reasonable
apprehension of lack of fairness, thereby undermining public confidence
in the investigative process.
12. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
investigation conducted by the local police does not inspire confidence
and falls short of the constitutional mandate of a fair and impartial
investigation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
13. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:
a) The investigation in Crime No.110 of 2017 of Kukunoorpally
Police Station shall be transferred to the CBCID, which shall
conduct a fair, impartial, and independent investigation, including
further or de novo investigation, if necessary;
b) The respondent authorities shall forthwith hand over the entire
case diary, material objects, forensic reports, and all connected
records to the transferee agency;
NTR,J
c) All officers involved in the earlier investigation shall extend full
cooperation;
d) The transferee agency shall examine all aspects, including
allegations of abetment of suicide, removal of suicide note,
tampering of evidence, and removal of valuables;
e) The transferee agency shall independently assess all versions
and arrive at its own conclusions;
f) The investigation shall be completed expeditiously, preferably
within nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
g) Periodical progress reports shall be submitted before the
jurisdictional Magistrate.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as
to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 09.04.2026
svl
