Pannalal Vinod Choudary, vs The State of Telangana, Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR — CRLP/8620/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 480,483. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED NO COSTS on 19th June 2026.
CNR: HBHC010372432026
Filing Number
CRLP/10258/2026
Filing Date
11-Jun-2026
Registration No
CRLP/8620/2026
Registration Date
11-Jun-2026
Judge
K. Sujana
Coram
K. Sujana
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CRLP ( 41 )
Sub-Category
U/s.437 and 439 Cr.p.c Regular Bail ( 62 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL Section
Decision Date
19-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED NO COSTS
Last updated 20-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Pannalal Vinod Choudary,
Adv. K CHAITHANYA
Respondent(s)
-
1.The State of Telangana, Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
19-Jun-2026
K. SujanaView PDF
Case Summary: CRLP/8620/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Telangana GRANTED BAIL to petitioner Pannalal Vinod Choudary on June 19, 2026, subject to strict conditions including a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and weekly police reporting. Key Reasoning: The Court found that while the petitioner faced serious charges (harassment leading to suicide) and his bail was previously cancelled due to alleged witness intimidation, sufficient material investigation had been completed. The Court held that mere pendency of a separate witness intimidation case (Crime No. 198/2026) cannot justify indefinite detention, and the prolonged custody (since May 18, 2026) was disproportionate. The petitioner was also barred from contacting witnesses as a protective condition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
19-Jun-2026
Interlocutory(fresh Bail Petitions)
K. Sujana
-
12-Jun-2026
K. SujanaView PDF
-
12-Jun-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Jun-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRLP/8620/2026
Case Summary: CRLP/8620/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Telangana GRANTED BAIL to petitioner Pannalal Vinod Choudary on June 19, 2026, subject to strict conditions including a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and weekly police reporting. Key Reasoning: The Court found that while the petitioner faced serious charges (harassment leading to suicide) and his bail was previously cancelled due to alleged witness intimidation, sufficient material investigation had been completed. The Court held that mere pendency of a separate witness intimidation case (Crime No. 198/2026) cannot justify indefinite detention, and the prolonged custody (since May 18, 2026) was disproportionate. The petitioner was also barred from contacting witnesses as a protective condition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts