Atmakuri Srinu and Nagaraju vs The State of Telangana
- Court
- High Court for the State of Telangana
*THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
*THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.7309, 6838, 6845, 8176, 8178
AND 8574 OF 2026
% 13.11.2025
WRIT PETITION Nos.7309 OF 2026:
# Atmakuri Srinu @ Nagaraju
…Petitioner
vs.
$ The State of Telangana and Two Others
… Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners:
Mr. V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Verose
Sanjana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.
Nos.7309, 6845 and 8574 of 2026 and Mr. Ajith Reddy, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.6838, 8176 and
8178 of 2026.
^Counsel for Respondents:
Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, the learned Special Government Pleader,
representing the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing
for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
2
MB,J & RY,J
W.P.No.7309 of 2026 & Batch
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION Nos.7309, 6838, 6845, 8176, 8178
AND 8574 OF 2026
(CNR No.HBHC010144472026)
th
13 November, 2026
RESERVED ON: 02.11.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 13.11.2026
UPLOADED ON : 13.11.2026
W.P.NO.7309 OF 2026:
BETWEEN :
Atmakuri Srinu @ Nagaraju
…..Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana and Two Others
…..Respondents
Mr. V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Verose Sanjana, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.7309, 6845 and 8574 of 2026 and Mr.
Ajith Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.6838, 8176 and
8178 of 2026.
Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, the learned Special Government Pleader, representing the learned
Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
COMMON ORDER: ( Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya )
1. A batch of Writ Petitions have been filed seeking a Writ of
Habeas Corpus to produce the detenus and order for their release
by setting aside the impugned detention orders dated 14.11.2025
passed by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. The detention
3
MB,J & RY,J
W.P.No.7309 of 2026 & Batch
orders were confirmed by the Secretary to the Government (Poll.)
(FAC), General Administration (Spl. Law and Order) Department,
State of Telangana, Hyderabad/the respondent No.1 on 24.11.2025
and 12.01.2026.
2. The detenus are the accused in Crime No.265 of 2025, on the
file of Malakpet Police Station, which forms the basis of the
impugned detention orders dated 14.11.2025. Since the substance
of the six Writ Petitions is the same, we deem it fit to pass a
Common Order in all six Writ Petitions.
3. W.P.No.7309 of 2026, the lead case of the batch, is filed in
respect of Atmakuri Srinu @ Nagaraju who is the accused No.3.
W.P.No.6838 of 2026 is filed in respect of Kandukuri
Prashanth who is the accused No.4.
W.P.No.6845 of 2026 is filed in respect of Kumba
Yedukondalu who is the accused No.2.
W.P.No.8176 of 2026 is filed in respect of Arjun Gnana
Prakash who is the accused No.5.
4
MB,J & RY,J
W.P.No.7309 of 2026 & Batch
W.P.No.8178 of 2026 is filed in respect of Lingibedi Rambabu
who is the accused No.6.
W.P.No.8574 of 2026 is filed in respect of Donthi Rajesh @
Rajanna @ Kanna who is the accused No.1.
4. All six detenus were detained under the provisions of The
Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers,
Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders,
Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders,
Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document
Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders,
Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances
Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White
Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (‘the 1986 Act’), after being
classified as ‘Goonda’s under section 2(g) of the said Act.
5. We first deal with the factual and legal contentions raised in
W.P.No.7309 of 2026 as argued in the lead case.
6. Vide the impugned detention orders, the writ petitioners were
detained under section 3(2) of the 1986 Act. The Ground/basic
5
MB,J & RY,J
W.P.No.7309 of 2026 & Batch
offence which was taken into consideration for the order of
detention is Crime No.265 of 2025 registered for the offences under
sections 115(1), 103(1), 61(2) read with section 3(4) of The
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) (criminal conspiracy,
causing hurt and murder); section 25(1B)(a) and 27(3) of The Arms
Act, 1959 (carrying and using a firearm without license); and
section 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the SC/ST Act’) (commuting an
offence punishable with imprisonment of a term of ten years or
more against a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe).
7. The six detention orders contain the same set of facts and
grounds for detention. The Grounds for detention specifically deal
with the offence (Crime No.265 of 2025) and the factual matrix
involved in the offence. The facts stated in the detention orders are
as follows:
8. On 15.07.2025, Dhonti Rajesh made a phone call to Atmakuri
Srinu and asked him to come down from his lodge with weapons.
When Atmakuri Srinu and his associates (the four other detenus)
6
MB,J & RY,J
W.P.No.7309 of 2026 & Batch
came down from the lodge, Dhonti Rajesh narrated the plan of
killing the deceased (Kethavath Chandu Rathod) and assigned a
role to each of the detenus for committing the offence. Dhonti
Rajesh handed over chilli powder to Kandukuri Prashanth, a bag
containing four knives to Lingabedi Rambabu, a revolver to
Atmakuri Srinu and a pistol to Arjun Gnana Prakash. The accused
persons (including the detenus) left the place in a Maruti Swift car
and reached the house of the deceased at about 6:10 hours and
waited for the deceased. The deceased came out of his house after
a while and proceeded towards the GHMC Park, Shalivahana
Nagar, Malakpet, on his Hero Honda Motorcycle along with his wife
and daughter. Atmakuri Srinu and his associates followed the
deceased in the crime vehicle and stopped their vehicle at the west
gate of the park.
9. The wife and the daughter of the deceased left the park at
about 7:10 hours. Thereafter, Atmakuri Srinu and his associate
Kandukuri Prashanth entered the park and monitored the
movements of the deceased. At about 07:20 hours, when the
deceased along with one Boda Nagaraju was walking towards the
7
MB,J & RY,J
W.P.No.7309 of 2026 & Batch
west gate exit of the park, Kandukuri Prashanth threw chilli
powder in the eyes of the deceased and Atmakuri Srinu and Arjun
Gnana Prakash opened fired at him multiple times using a revolver
and pistol. The deceased sustained bullet injuries and fell to the
ground. Immediately, Dhonti Rajesh took the pistol from Arjun
Gnana Prakash and fired another shot at the deceased resulting in
his instantaneous death.
10. After the commission of the offence, Atmakuri Srinu and his
associates fled the scene in the crime vehicle. One Kogari Naveen,
who witnessed the incident, recorded the escape of Atmakuri Srinu
and his associates in the crime vehicle on his mobile phone.
Donthi Rajesh got down from the vehicle at Chaitanyapuri while his
associates proceeded to other places. Arjun Gnana Prakash called
Taltam Suresh, Atmakuri Srinu and his associates and got into his
car and went towards Kodad after collecting the personal bag of
Donthi Rajesh containing clothes with the assistance of Etikala
Anjaiah. Atmakuri Srinu and his associates threw the bag
containing four knives into a palm oil garden to conceal the
evidence.
8
MB,J & RY,J
W.P.No.7309 of 2026 & Batch
11. On 15.07.2025 at about 08.05 hours, Kethavath Nari
Bai/wife of the deceased lodged a complaint before the Malakpet
Police Station regarding her husband’s killing by the accused.
Crime No.265 of 2025 was registered on the basis of the said
complaint at Malakpet Police Station and the Inspector of Police,
Malakpet, took up the investigation.
12. The Grounds of detention record that the Investigating Officer
visited the scene of offence and seized several material objects. By
the proceedings dated 19.07.2025, the ACP, Malakpet Division was
instructed to take further investigation as the Investigating Officer.
On 18.07.2025, Arjun Gnana Prakash and Lingibedi Rambabu
were apprehended whereupon they disclosed that Donthi Rajesh
and their associates were at Hanamkonda Road, Jangaon. Donthi
Rajesh, Kumba Yedukondalu and Kandukuri Prashanth were
apprehended with firearms.
13. The Investigating Officer recorded detailed confessional
statements of Donthi Rajesh, Kumba Yedukondalu and Kandukuri
Prashanth in the presence of the mediators. The detenus
voluntarily confessed to brutally killing the deceased by opening
9
MB,J & RY,J
W.P.No.7309 of 2026 & Batch
fire. Pursuant to the said confession, the Investigating Officer
seized weapons including a revolver and catridges as well as mobile
phones. Gold and Silver ornaments and cash were also seized from
Arjun Gnana Prakash and stolen cash was seized from Lingibedi
Rambabu. Atmakuri Srinu surrendered before the learned VII
Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad on 18.07.2025 and was
remanded to judicial custody.
14. A Test Identification Parade was conducted on 30.08.2025
with the wife and daughter of the deceased and two other
independent eye witnesses. The wife and daughter of the deceased
identified Donthi Rajesh, Kumba Yedukondalu and Kandukuri
Prashanth . The witnesses also correctly identified Kumba
Yedukondalu and Atmakuri Srinu . The fire arms seized along with
the blood-stained clothes of the deceased were sent to Forensic
Science Laboratories, Hyderabad, Telangana for chemical and
ballistic examination. The Assistant Director opined that human
blood was detected on the deformed copper jacketed bullets and the
t-shirt of the deceased. It was further reported that the pistol and
10
MB,J & RY,J
W.P.No.7309 of 2026 & Batch
revolver were country-made and in working order and had been
previously fired but the exact dates cannot be ascertained.
15. Fingerprint Experts compared the fingerprints of Kandukuri
Prashanth, Donthi Rajesh, Lingibedi Rambabu, Kumba
Yedukondalu and Arjun Gnana Prakash and furnished a Report on
28.07.2025 opining that the fingerprints are identical.
16. The detenus moved bail petitions before the Special Judge for
Trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act, Secunderabad on
19.08.2025 and 15.09.2025, respectively, which were opposed by
the prosecution. The bail petitions were dismissed on 30.08.2025,
07.10.2025 and 17.10.2025. Subsequently, the detenus again
applied for bail and the bail applications were opposed by the
prosecution. However, the Court granted conditional bail to the
detenus and ordered their release from judicial custody on
23.10.2025 and 28.10.2025. The Investigating Officer filed
petitions before the Court seeking cancellation of bail granted to
the detenus and the petitions are pending consideration.
11
MB,J & RY,J
W.P.No.7309 of 2026 & Batch
17. The Grounds of detention state that the detenus are
notorious and dangerous criminals with past history of attempt to
murder and that the detenus brutally killed the deceased in broad
daylight in a public place within the limits of Hyderabad Police
which consequently adversely affected maintenance of public order.
The detenus were classified as ‘Goonda’s under section 2(g) of the
1986 Act.
18. The Grounds conclude by stating that the detenus (along with
their associates) brutally killed the deceased in a public place
creating fear, terror and panic in the minds of the general public
thereby disrupting public order and tranquility in the area. Hence
it was imperative to prevent the detenus from acting in a manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and recourse to
normal law may not be an effective deterrent in preventing the
detenus from indulging in such activities. The impugned detention
orders supported by the Grounds were approved on 24.11.2025
and 12.01.2026 by the State of Telangana.
12
MB,J & RY,J
W.P.No.7309 of 2026 & Batch
19. We have considered the submissions of learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents/State.
20. The primary submission made on behalf of the petitioners is
that the impugned orders do not satisfy the requirement of
‘Goonda’ as defined under section 2(g) of the 1986 Act. It is also
the petitioners’ case that the impugned orders were invoked
subsequent to the detenus being enlarged on bail which is
impermissible in law. According to the petitioners, the State could
have sought recourse to the remedies available in criminal law by
pursuing the petitions for cancellation of bail granted to the
detenus.
21. On the other hand, the principal submission made on behalf
of the State is that the crime was committed in broad day light, in a
public place (GHMC Park, Shalivahana Nagar) and in a manner
which would instill fear, intimidation and panic amongst the public
especially to the persons who witnessed the commission of the
crime in the park. It is submitted that the morning
13
MB,J & RY,J
W.P.No.7309 of 2026 & Batch
walkers/persons who normally use the park for walking, assuming
the place to be a safe space, were traumatised by the crime.
22. The word ‘Goonda’ as defined under section 2(g) of the 1986
Act is set out below:
‘"goonda" means a person, who either by himself or as a member of
or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or
abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or
Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code;’
23. The offences punishable under Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII of
the IPC cover Offences Affecting the Human Body, Offences Against
Property, and Criminal Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance,
respectively.
24. The defining feature of the word ‘goonda’ under section 2(g) of
the 1986 Act consists in the words ‘ habitually commits, or attempts
to commit or abets… ’. The word ‘habitually’ means doing something
often or a usual pattern of behavior expressed through actions.
The expression thus contemplates a degree of repetition and
continuity. The inclination to commit offences punishable under
the prescribed sections of the IPC hence cannot be inferred from a
solitary act but must be reflected through multiple instances of
14
MB,J & RY,J
W.P.No.7309 of 2026 & Batch
commission or attempted commission of such offences. Therefore,
there must be multiple instances of committing offences, whether
by reference to the number or frequency of offences, for a person to
be categorized as a ‘Goonda’. A solitary offence cannot by itself
satisfy the requirement of the word ‘habitually’ under section 2(g) of
the 1986 Act.
25. In the present case, the six detention orders individually
reflect that the Commissioner of Police took into account only one
crime, namely, Crime No.265 of 2025 for passing the impugned
detention orders against the detenus. None of the impugned
detention orders reflect more than one crime committed by the
detenus. The fact that only one criminal case has been relied upon
to bring the detenu within the definition of a ‘Goonda’ raises a
serious question on the legality of the impugned detention orders
with reference to the definition under section 2 (g) of the Act.
26. Although the impugned detention orders describe the detenus
as notorious and dangerous criminals with a criminal history
involving offences such as ‘attempt to murder’, the substance of the
impugned orders however reveal that the detention is grounded
15
MB,J & RY,J
W.P.No.7309 of 2026 & Batch
solely on Crime No.265 of 2026 relating to the killing of
Khethavath Chandu Rathod. The impugned detention orders make
no reference to or rely upon any other crimes allegedly committed
by the detenus evidencing their ‘past criminal history’. While each
of the detenus were attributed a role in the murder of Khethavath
Chandu Rathod, the crime relied upon in each of the impugned
order is the same, namely, Crime No.265 of 2025.
27. Having regard to the definition of ‘Goonda’ under section 2(g)
of the 1986 Act, we reiterate that for a person to be classified as a
‘Goonda’, the statutory requirements of habituality must first be
satisfied. In other words, the material relied upon must establish
that the detenu is a habitual offender in respect of the offences
contemplated under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the IPC, as
mentioned in the said section.
28. In the present case, there is no statement or evidence
showing that the detenus were habitual offenders or have
habitually committed offences falling within the aforesaid Chapters
of the IPC. The gravity, brutality or premeditated nature of a crime
cannot, by itself, bring an accused within the ambit of section 2(g)
16
MB,J & RY,J
W.P.No.7309 of 2026 & Batch
of the 1986 Act unless ‘habituality’ is established, preceding the
requirement of acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order as mentioned under section 2(a) of the 1986 Act.
29. The present case fails to satisfy the fundamental requirement
of a ‘Goonda’ insofar as the detenus being linked only to one crime,
namely, Crime No.265 of 2025.
30. A special statute involving consequences infringing on
personal liberty must receive a precise and strict construction.
Therefore, the words ‘ habitually commits, attempts to commit or
abets…. ’ cannot be overlooked or put on the same plane as other
categories of offences/offenders under section 2 - which do not
require habituality. The very fact that the Legislature thought it fit
to require ‘habituality’ for classification as a ‘Goonda’, while making
it irrelevant in the other sub-sections of section 2, requiring the
detaining authority to employ the definition only where the subject
matter of detention shows habituality or repeat offences.
31. We are thus constrained to hold that all six impugned
detention orders dated 14.11.2025, as approved by the Government
17
MB,J & RY,J
W.P.No.7309 of 2026 & Batch
of State of Telangana on 24.11.2025 and 12.01.2026 are liable to
be quashed and set aside for the reasons stated above.
32. The facts in the six writ petitions are substantially the same
since the petitioners in each of the writ petitions were detained on
the basis of registration of Crime No.265 of 2025 against them. All
the impugned detention orders also contain the same Grounds for
detaining the detenus by individually linking them to the said
crime.
33. The impugned detention orders dated 14.11.2025, passed by
the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and confirmed by the
Secretary to the Government (Poll.) (FAC), General Administration
(Spl. Law and Order) Department, State of Telangana, Hyderabad
on 24.11.2025 and 12.01.2026, are hereby set aside.
Consequently, the Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison,
Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, is directed to forthwith release the
detenus from detention, if they are not required to be detained in
connection with any other case/crime.
18
MB,J & RY,J
W.P.No.7309 of 2026 & Batch
34. W.P.Nos. 7309, 6838, 6845, 8176, 8178 and 8574 of 2026,
along with all connected applications, are accordingly allowed in
terms of this Common Order.
___________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
th
13 November, 2026
Note: L.R. Copy be marked.
B/o. BMS/TJMR