Banoth Rahul, vs The State of Telangana,
- Court
- High Court for the State of Telangana
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.17591 of 2026
Between :
Banoth Rahul, S/o.Banoth Jamla,
Aged: about 28 years, occ: Private Employee,
R/o.C3, Erakuntapalem, Post Peddanagaram,
Narasimhulapeta, Nagaram, Warangal District,
Telangana State – 506324
….Petitioner/Accused No.1
VERSUS
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad,
Through the Station House Officer,
Miyapur Police Station and another.
… Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 30.10.2026
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the
Judgments?
Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
Yes/No
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish
to see the fair copy of the Judgment?
Yes/No
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.17591 of 2026
% Dated 30.10.2026
# Banoth Rahul, S/o.Banoth Jamla,
Aged: about 28 years, occ: Private Employee,
R/o.C3, Erakuntapalem, Post Peddanagaram,
Narasimhulapeta, Nagaram, Warangal District,
Telangana State – 506324
….Petitioner/Accused No.1
VERSUS
$ The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad,
Through the Station House Officer,
Miyapur Police Station and another.
… Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr. Jayaraj Joel Babu Raidu
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. G. Rajendhar
(for respondent No.1)
Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla,
Additional Public Prosecutor
(for respondent No.2)
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. (1994) 5 SCC 188
2. (1995) 1 SCC 349
3. 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 1252
4. (1986) 4 SCC 481
5. 2014 SCC OnLine SC 793
6. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1916
3
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
Criminal Petition No.17591 of 2026
(CNR No. HBHC010733742026)
Date: 30.10.2026
Reserved on: 27.10.2026 Pronounced on : 30.10.2026
Uploaded on : .10.2026
Between:
Banoth Rahul
...Petitioner/Accused No.1
And
The State of Telangana and another.
...Respondents
: O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1
seeking to set aside the order dated 07.10.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.345
of 2026 in Crl.M.P.No.96 of 2026 in Crime No.69 of 2026 by the learned VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at
Kukatpally (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’) and to restore the bail
granted to the petitioner vide order dated 23.02.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.96 of
2026.
2. Brief facts of the case:
2.1. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.69 of 2026 of Myapur
Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 69, 115(2) and
351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
short, ‘the BNS’) and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on
4
23.01.2026. Thereafter, he filed Crl.M.P.No.96 of 2026 seeking release him
on bail. The learned trial Court enlarged him on bail vide order dated
23.02.2026 with certain conditions. While things stood, on 29.05.2026,
respondent No.2 filed Crl.M.P.No.345 of 2026 before the learned trial Court
for cancellation of bail granted in favour of the petitioner on the ground
that he violated the bail conditions and on 07.05.2026, the petitioner
contacted her and threatened to publish her photographs and videos,
which are in his possession, in social media and on 14.05.2026, the
petitioner and his brothers intercepted, abused and physically assaulted
and also threatened her. Thereby, she lodged a complaint before the
Station House Officer, Panjagutta, on 27.05.2026, and Crime No.437 of
2026 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections
115(2), 126(2) and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS. The learned
trial Court allowed Crl.M.P.no.345 of 2026 on 07.10.2026 and cancelled
the bail granted in favour of the petitioner and directed him to surrender
before the VIII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cyberabad at
Kukatpally Court, on or before 16.10.2026. Hence, the petitioner filed the
present Criminal Petition seeking to set aside the impugned order passed
by the learned trial Court.
3. Heard Mr.Jayaraj Joel Babu Raidu, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr.R.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing
Mr. G.Rajendhar, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and
Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent No.1-State.
5
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner :
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was
enlarged on bail pursuant to the order passed by the learned trial Court in
Crl.M.P.No.96 of 2026, dated 23.02.2026, and the petitioner has not
violated any bail conditions. Respondent No.2 filed Crl.M.P.No.345 of 2026
seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner only on the ground
that subsequent to release of the petitioner, he threatened her with dire
consequences. The learned trial Court cancelled the bail granted to the
petitioner on the ground of the registration of a subsequent crime, viz.,
Crime No. 437 of 2026, pursuant to the complaint lodged by respondent
No. 2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 lodged subsequent
complaint on 27.05.2026 with false and baseless allegations with an
intention to harass the petitioner. Even according to the allegations
levelled in the said complaint, the alleged incident took place on
14.05.2026, whereas respondent No.2 lodged the complaint on
27.05.2026, after lapse of nearly 13 days, without assigning any reasons
for the said delay.
4.2. He further submitted that the petitioner appointed as a Sales
Manager-LAP in Bandhan Bank on 18.03.2026 and since then he has been
discharging his duties and question of harassing respondent No.2 on
07.05.2026 and on 14.05.2026, as alleged in the complaint in Crime
No.437 of 2026, does not arise and respondent No.2 lodged the false
complaint only with an intention to harass the petitioner on one way or the
other. In support of her allegations, respondent No.2 has not produced
6
any iota of evidence, CCTV footage, call records, electronic evidence,
witness statements or any other independent material to prove that the
petitioner threatened her on 07.05.2026 and 14.05.2026, especially on
14.05.2026, the petitioner lodged a complaint against respondent No.2
before the Miyapur Police Station, however, the police have not taken any
action on said complaint.
4.3. He also submitted that in the sworn affidavit filed by respondent
No.2 along with Crl.M.P.No.345 of 2026, she has not made any allegations
which are alleged in her complaint in Crime No.437 of 2026 and she only
stated that the petitioner after releasing on bail threatened her with dire
consequences and therefore, violated the bail conditions. Whereas, in
Crime No.437 of 2026, respondent No.2 has made several allegations.
Hence, respondent No.2 has taken inconsistent stand in the complaint
dated 27.05.2026 and in Crl.M.P.No.345 of 2026. In the absence of any
iota of evidence, the learned trial Court cancelled the bail, which was
granted to the petitioner, and the same is contrary to law.
4.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:
1
1. Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P. ;
2
2. Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana ; and
3. Renjith v. State of Kerala represented by Public
3
Prosecutor .
1
(1994) 5 SCC 188
2
(1995) 1 SCC 349
3
2023 SCC OnLine Ker 1252
7
5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:
5.1. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the
petitioner, after released on bail in Crime No.69 of 2026, on 07.05.2026,
he called respondent No.2 and stated that he is having her private
photographs and videos and threatened her that he will post the same on
social media and asked her to meet him on 14.05.2026 at his office. On
14.05.2026, when she reached near Erramanzil RNTS building, the
petitioner along with his brothers, namely, Venkatesh and Prasad, abused
and attacked physically by beating her on hands, pressed her neck and
kicked on legs. Immediately, she lodged a complaint against the petitioner
and his brothers on 14.05.2026 before Khairatabad Police Station and also
she went to the Gandhi Hospital for treatment. The complaint lodged by
respondent No.2 was made over to Panjagutta Police Station on the ground
of jurisdiction and accordingly, Crime No.437 of 2026 was registered
against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 115(2),
126(2) and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS.
5.2. He further submitted that the petition violated the bail conditions
and misused the liberty granted to him and threatened, assaulted and
intimidated respondent No.2 and repeated the similar offences against her
and the learned trial Court righty passed the impugned order by giving
cogent reasons and cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and there
are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the present
criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
8
5.3. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the
4
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raghubir Singh and others v. State of Bihar .
6. Submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:
6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are
specific allegations levelled in Crl.M.P.No.345 of 2026 filed by respondent
No.2 seeking cancellation of bail that the petitioner misused the liberty
granted by the learned trial Court, while granting bail on 23.02.2026, and
thereafter, assaulted and intimidated respondent No.2 on 07.05.2026 and
14.05.2026 and there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint
dated 27.05.2026 that the petitioner threatened respondent No.2 on
07.05.2026 that he would publish her photographs and videos on social
media and on 14.05.2026, the petitioner along with his brothers
intercepted respondent No.2, abused her physically and assaulted her.
The learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order and
cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and there are no grounds to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.
Analysis:
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that
the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.69 of 2026 of Miyapur Police
Station registered for the offences under Sections 69, 115(2) and 351(2)
read with Section 3(5) of the BNS and he was arrested and remanded to
4
(1986) 4 SCC 481
9
judicial custody. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.96 of 2026 seeking to
enlarge him on bail. The learned trial Court on 23.02.2026 granted bail to
the petitioner subject to certain conditions and one of such conditions is
that the petitioner shall not threaten or induce the witnesses and shall
cooperate in the investigation of the case. The specific case of respondent
No.2 is that the petitioner after releasing on bail in Crime No.69 of 2026,
on 07.05.2026, he called respondent No.2 through phone and stated that
he is having her private photographs and videos and threatened her that
he will post the same on social media and asked her to meet him at his
office on 14.05.2026. Pursuant to the said call, on 14.05.2026,
respondent No.2 at 9-40 hours went to his office i.e. Bandhan Bank,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad. While talking with her, the petitioner stated that
he had already released from jail and abused her with vulgar language and
that he will post her private photographs and videos on social media and
started calling his members, for which she got fear and she left for the
nearest police station and when she reached near Erramanzil, RNTS
Building, the petitioner attacked physically by beating her on hands,
pressed her neck and kicked on legs and called his brothers. He along
with his brothers abused her and threatened her and the petitioner tried to
kill her by pressing her neck, they left the place as she called the police.
Immediately i.e., on the same day, respondent No.2 approached the
Khairatabad Police Station and lodged a complaint and taken treatment at
Gandhi Hospital on 15.05.2026.
10
8. The record further discloses that respondent No.2 lodged a
complaint on 27.05.2026 before Panjagutta Police Station at about 13.45
hours. Basing on the same, Crime No.437 of 2026 was registered against
the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2)
and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS. Thereafter, respondent No.2
filed a petition before the learned trial Court on 29.05.2026 seeking
cancellation of bail invoking the provisions of Section 483(3) of Cr.P.C. on
the ground that when the petitioner was on bail, he threatened her with
dire consequences and thereby violated the bail conditions. Respondent
No.2 in Crl.M.P.No.345 of 2026 specifically mentioned that on 07.05.2026,
the petitioner called her and stated that he is having photographs and
videos and threatened her that he will post them on social media. On
14.05.2026 at 09.40 hours, respondent No.2 went to his office at Bandhan
Bank, Somajiguda. When respondent No.2 reached near Erramanzil RNTS
building, the petitioner along with his brothers, namely, Venkatesh and
Prasad, started abusing her and attacked physically by beating on hands,
pressed her neck and kicked on legs. Further, the petitioner and his
brothers threatened, influenced respondent No.2 and trying to tamper with
the evidence. Later, on 14.06.2026, respondent No.2 went to the
Khairathabad Police Station and raised a complaint against the petitioner
and his brothers. Further, she went to the Gandhi Hospital on the same
day for treatment. Later, Khairatabad Police Station, made over the
complaint to Panjagutta Police Station. Further, the Panjagutta Police
Station registered the crime against the petitioner and others for the
11
offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of
the BNS. The petitioner violated the conditions imposed by the Court,
while granting bail, and the acts of the petitioner are causing obstruction
to fair investigation/trial. Respondent No.2 further averred that unless the
bail granted to the petitioner is cancelled, there is every likelihood of the
petitioner repeating similar offences against her. The petitioner filed
counter denying the allegations made by respondent No.2. The learned
trial Court, after considering the contentions raised by the respective
parties, allowed the petition and cancelled the bail granted in favour of
petitioner on the ground that subsequent to the grant of bail in Crime
No.69 of 2026, the petitioner had threatened and attempted to intimidate
respondent No.2 and had also assaulted her and he misused the liberty
granted to him. The trial Court further observed that after enlarged on
bail, the petitioner committed similar offences of threatening, assaulting
and intimidating against respondent No.2.
9. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that respondent No.2 lodged the complaint on 27.05.2026 in
respect of the alleged offence took place on 14.05.2026, after lapse of 13
days, without assigning any reasons only with an intention to harass the
petitioner. Whereas, the specific case of respondent No.2 is that
immediately on 14.05.2026, she raised a complaint against the petitioner
before the Khairatabad Police Station and also taken treatment at Gandhi
Hospital. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
placed a copy of the order dated 23.02.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.96 of 2026,
12
Reception Centre Acknowledgment issued by the Khairatabad Police
Station, Medical Record of Gandhi Hospital, dated 15.05.2026, showing
that she lodged a complaint on 14.05.2026 before the Khairatabad Police
Station and taken treatment at Gandhi Hospital on 15.05.2026. Whether,
respondent No.2 lodged the complaint with a delay or the documents
produced before this Court are true or not, the same will be revealed
during the course of investigation, especially the scope of the present
criminal petition is very limited whether the impugned order passed by the
learned trial Court in cancelling the bail which was granted in favour of the
petitioner is valid or not.
10. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that respondent No.2 has not enclosed any iota of evidence
including CCTV footage or any other evidence in support of her complaint
dated 27.05.2026 in Crime No.437 of 2026 is concerned, even according to
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the investigation is under
progress.
11. It is already stated supra that on 23.02.2026, the learned trial
Court, while granting bail in Crl.M.P.No.96 of 2026 in Crime No.69 of
2026, imposed a specific condition that the petitioner shall not threaten or
induce the witnesses. The specific case of respondent No.2 is that
subsequent to release on bail, the petitioner on 07.05.2026, he called
respondent No.2 through phone and stated that he is having her private
photographs and videos and threatened her that he will post the same on
13
social media and asked her to meet him at his office on 14.05.2026.
Pursuant to the said call, on 14.05.2026, respondent No.2 at 9-40 hours
went to his office i.e. Bandhan Bank, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. While
talking with her, he stated that he had already released from jail and
abused her with vulgar language and he told her that he will post her
private photographs and videos on social media and started calling his
members for which she got fear and she left for the nearest police station
and when she reached near Erramanzil, RNTS Building, the petitioner
attacked physically by beating her on hands, pressed her neck and kicked
on legs and called his brothers. He along with his brothers abused her
and threatened her and the petitioner tried to kill her by pressing her
neck, they left the place as she called the police. The said allegations
prima facie reveal that the petitioner has misused the liberty granted to
him and committed similar offences of Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 351(2)
read with Section 3(5) of the BNS against respondent No.2 and violated the
terms and conditions imposed by the learned trial Court in the order dated
23.02.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.96 of 2026. The learned trial Court taking into
consideration the above said facts had rightly passed the impugned order
dated 07.10.2026 and cancelled the bail granted in favour of the petitioner.
12. In Renjith ( supra ), the High Court of Kerala held that that the mere
registration of a subsequent crime against the accused cannot result in
automatic cancellation of bail. Very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are necessary for cancellation of bail, and the Court must
consider the nature of the subsequent offence, the possibility of false
14
implication, and whether the accused has misused the liberty granted to
him or interfered with the due course of the administration of justice. Bail
already granted should not be cancelled mechanically without close
scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case.
13. In Dolat Ram ( supra ), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that rejection of
bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail already granted must be
considered on different bases. Very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are necessary for cancellation of bail. Bail may be cancelled
where the accused interferes with the due course of administration of
justice, attempts to evade justice, abuses the concession of bail, or is likely
to abscond. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled
mechanically without considering whether supervening circumstances
have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial.
14. In Meharaj Singh ( supra ), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that an
unexplained delay in lodging the FIR may give rise to the possibility of
deliberation, embellishment and the introduction of a false, colored or
exaggerated version of the occurrence. The purpose of prompt registration
of an FIR is to preserve the earliest version of the incident. Therefore,
where the delay remains unexplained and the surrounding circumstances
create doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution version, the
Court must scrutinize the prosecution evidence with greater caution.
15. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner
in Renjith and Dolat Ram and others ( supra ) are not applicable to the
15
facts and circumstances of the present case on the ground that the learned
trial Court has not cancelled the bail on the ground of mere registration of
subsequent crime against the petitioner at the instance of respondent
No.2. There are specific allegations levelled in the complaint as well as
seeking cancellation of bail filed by respondent No.2 that the petitioner
physically attacked respondent No.2 on 14.05.2026 and also he along with
his brothers threatened, assaulted and intimidated her.
16. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner
in Meharaj Singh supra, is also not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case on the ground that the scope of the
present criminal petition is very limited. Whether the impugned order
passed by the learned trial Court in cancelling the bail to the petitioner is
valid or not. The delay in lodging in F.I.R. in Crime No.437 of 2026 is not
the issue involved in the present criminal petition.
17. In Raghubir Singh ( supra ), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that bail
granted under the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. may be cancelled
under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) Cr.P.C. on valid grounds. The grounds for
cancellation of bail include interference or attempt to interfere with the due
course of administration of justice, evasion or attempt to evade the course
of justice, or abuse of the liberty granted to the accused by indulging in
similar or other unlawful acts is applicable to the facts and circumstances
of the present case on the ground that petitioner misused the bail
enlargement to him by indulging in similar
16
18. It is relevant to mention that in Abdul Basit v. Abdul Kadir
5
Choudhary , the Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborated the circumstances in
which bail granted under Section 439(1) Cr.P.C may be cancelled,
including where the accused:
• engages in similar criminal activity post-bail;
• interferes with or obstructs the investigation;
• tampers with evidence or influences witnesses;
• intimidates or threatens witnesses;
• attempts to abscond or evade judicial process;
• becomes unavailable or goes underground;
• violates the conditions imposed or evades the control of
sureties.
6
19. In Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , the Hon’ble
Apex Court summed up the principles governing cancellation of bail as
under:
Some of the circumstances where bail granted to the accused
under Section 439(1) Cr.P.C can be cancelled are enumerated
below:
(a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other
criminal activity;
(b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;
(c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;
5
2014 SCC OnLine SC 793
6
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1916
17
(d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;
(e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;
(f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth
investigation;
(g) If he is likely to flee from the country;
(h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going
underground and/or becoming unavailable to the
investigating agency;
(i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his
surety.
(j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are
considered unconducive to a fair trial.
20. In the above said judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court elaborated the
circumstances in which bail granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. may be
cancelled, including when the accused engages in similar criminal activity
post-bail, violates the conditions imposed, or evades the control of the
sureties. The above said principles are applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case on the ground that the petitioner has
violated the bail conditions by contacting, threatening, and inducing the
victim and committed similar offences against respondent No.2 and
misused the liberty granted to him.
21. For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions, this
Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated
07.10.2026 passed by the learned trial Court to exercise the powers
conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS.
18
22. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 30.10.2026
L.R. Copy to be marked
mar/pgp