Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 17 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 36Nominal Index Rudrabatla Santhosh Kumar and Ors v The State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 17Dr. Karam Nikhil Kumar and seventeen others v The State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 18Salguti Vishnuvardhan Reddy & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 19Harshini Kishore v. The Kaloji Narayana Rao University of...
Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 17 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 36
Nominal Index
Rudrabatla Santhosh Kumar and Ors v The State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 17
Dr. Karam Nikhil Kumar and seventeen others v The State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 18
Salguti Vishnuvardhan Reddy & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 19
Harshini Kishore v. The Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 20
Shri M. Appa Rao v. Union of India rep. by its Director General of Police (DG), Central Reserve Police Force & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 21
X v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 22
Bhashapaka Pragna Vardhini v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 23
Palivela Ravikumar & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 24
Om Prakash Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 25
M/s Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 26
Mangali Bhargav Kumar v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 27
X v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 28
Kalluru Soubhagya v. State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 29
Telangana Small Scale Industries Steel and Wooden Furniture Manufacturers Association & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 30
Konatham Dhilip Kumar @ Konatham Dileep Reddy & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 31
Dr. Raghavender Siva Vijaya Chivukula v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 32
Durgam Venkatesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 33
M/s. The Bottle Restaurant and Bar v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 34
Gade Innaiah @ Gade Inna Reddy v. State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 35
S.P. Kasim Peera v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 36
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Rudrabatla Santhosh Kumar and Ors v The State of Telangana
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 17
The Telangana High Court has partly allowed a petition seeking quashing of proceedings in a case registered under Section 108 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), holding that that continuation of proceedings against accused Nos.4 to 13 would amount to abuse of process of law, considering the victim's suicide note, that did not attribute any fault to them. The Court, however, refused to quash proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 3, who found direct mention in the suicide note.
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada was dealing with a Criminal Petition filed by accused Nos.1 to 13 seeking quashing of Crime on the file of Neelwai Police Station, Ramagundam.
Case Title: Dr. Karam Nikhil Kumar and seventeen others v The State of Telangana
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 18
The Telangana High Court has held that in-service doctors who became eligible for admission to Post Graduate Medical Degree Courses after reduction of the NEET-PG percentile should be permitted to exercise web options in the mop-up counselling for stray vacancies, if such counselling is reopened by the University.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Apresh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin disposed of a writ petition filed by the petitioner- Surgeon and 17 other Civil Assistant Surgeons, observing that in the event the University issues notification for exercising web options for mop-up counselling for stray vacancies, the petitioners should be allowed to participate in the process. The Court clarified that the “question of law was left open to be raised in an appropriate proceeding”.
Case Title: Salguti Vishnuvardhan Reddy & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 19
The Telangana High Court has held that merely mentioning the word “consideration” instead of “market value” in a partition deed cannot by itself justify treating the instrument as a conveyance and demanding additional stamp duty.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sarath observed that the registering authority cannot demand deficit stamp duty merely on the basis of such wording where there is no actual transfer of consideration among co-owners.
Case Title: Harshini Kishore v. The Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 20
The Telangana High Court permitted an MBBS student to approach the grievance redressal committee of Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, for re-verification of her answer sheet after she failed the Human Anatomy paper by one mark.
Justice Surepalli Nanda granted liberty to the student to approach the University's grievance mechanism for redressal.
The Court observed: “The writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Grievance Committee appointed by the respondent No.1–University by submitting representation with request to re-verify the petitioner's answer sheets in the subject of Human Anatomy… on any working day within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, by paying the requisite fee as per the rules.”
Case Title: Shri M. Appa Rao v. Union of India rep. by its Director General of Police (DG), Central Reserve Police Force & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 21
The Telangana High Court has held that the father of a CRPF constable who went missing while undergoing training cannot be denied service and pensionary benefits merely because he did not separately lodge a missing complaint.
In doing so the Court quashed the constable's ex parte removal from service, holding that the force could not evade responsibility after its own authorities had reported him missing.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin observed:
“The petitioner's son was not in the custody of the petitioner - father when he went missing. He was under the control and command of the Commanding Officer, Group Centre, CRPF, Jharodakalan, New Delhi in effect in his regimental family. In such a case, when even the warrant of arrest could not be executed against the Constable, as he could not be found at his native place, the ex-parte departmental proceedings in his absence leading to his removal from service could hardly justify the charges alleged against him… The totality of facts and circumstances borne out from record… persuade us to hold that the insistence upon lodging of an FIR by the petitioner for his missing son would not be mandatory for consideration of the claim for service benefits to which his legal heirs or nominees are entitled as per law.”
Case title: X v. Y
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 22
The Telangana High Court has set aside a trial court order directing DNA test of a minor child to determine paternity in a matrimonial dispute, holding that a child cannot be used as "pawn" to establish allegations of adultery against the mother wherein the husband can prove the allegation without sacrificing the child's identity.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Renuka Yara observed that the question of directing DNA testing must be assessed “through the prism of the child” and not merely through the interests of the contesting spouses. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, the Court quoted:
“DNA tests of children born during the subsistence of valid marriage may be directed, only when there is sufficient prima-facie material to dislodge the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. Further, if no plea has been raised has to non-access in order to rebut the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act a DNA test may not be directed… The child cannot be used as a pawn to show that the mother of the child was living in adultery. It is always open to the respondent husband to prove by other evidence the adulterous conduct of the wife, but the child's right to identity should not be allowed to be sacrificed… To enable one of the parties to the marriage to have the benefit of fair trial, the Court cannot sacrifice the rights and best interests of a third party to the lis, namely, the child.”
Case Title: Bhashapaka Pragna Vardhini v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 23
The Telangana High Court has held that educational institutions cannot withhold original academic certificates of students on the ground of non-payment of fees, observing that such certificates are the property of the student and cannot be retained as leverage to recover dues.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Surepalli Nanda observed:
“The respondent no. 4 [university] cannot withhold the petitioner's original educational certificates (documents including the Marks Sheet and Degree Certificate) under any pretext. There is no lien on the certificate of the students since the certificate of the student is his/her property. This Court opines that the right of students to obtain their Certificates from one institution to join another institution cannot be denied by the concerned authorities merely because the tuition fee is due and if any amount is due from the petitioner towards such fees, the proper course available to the respondents is to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery before the competent Court and coercive tactics cannot be adopted by the respondents to make the petitioner pay the tuition fee.”
Case Title: Palivela Ravikumar & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 24
The Telangana High Court has held that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because the police registered a case under the BNS 2023, even though the alleged offence occurred prior to the enactment of the new criminal law framework.
The BNS came into force from July 1, 2024 replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Court clarified that such an error does not vitiate the proceedings, as the trial court can examine the allegations and frame appropriate charges under the correct law.
Case Title: Om Prakash Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 25
Quashing a money laundering case against a chartered accountant and a businessman accused of assisting in layering of funds in an alleged bank fraud case, the Telangana High Court observed that prosecution under PMLA cannot be sustained based on uncorroborated statements of co-accused.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice E.V. Venugopal while referring to Supreme Court judgments observed:
"When the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are tested on the touchstone of the above proposition of law raid down by the Hon'ble supreme court, the same squarely applies to the case of the petitioners entitling them for discharge from the present criminal prosecution as basing on the uncorroborated statements of co-accused recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, without any independent documentary or electronic evidence establishing a prior meeting of minds, control over funds, ownership or operation of accounts, or enjoyment of proceeds of crime the petitioners are arrayed as accused"
Case Title: M/s Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 26
The Telangana High Court refused to interfere with process initiated by labour authorities to conduct a secret ballot election for determining the majority representative trade union, holding that such a process is integral to industrial democracy promoting democratic representation for workmen.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, dismissing the writ petition filed by Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd., observed:
“The apprehension expressed by petitioner that conduct of elections would disturb industrial peace, adversely affect day-to-day operations, impede implementation of the resolution plan approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, or jeopardize the revival of the unit is speculative and unsupported by any tangible material. On the contrary, the very object of the Code of Discipline and the process of secret ballot election is to promote orderly industrial relations, provide a legitimate and democratic representative mechanism for workmen, and ensure industrial harmony.”
Case Title: Mangali Bhargav Kumar v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 27
The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a student accused of creating and uploading "fake" videos about a contractor and his family on YouTube after the latter allegedly failed to construct the petitioner's house within the stipulated time.
In doing so the court held that the allegations in the complaint did not attract offences under Section 420 IPC (cheating) or Section 66D (impersonation) of IT Act.
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada observed that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of law.
The Court, quoting the Supreme Court judgement in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, noted that an FIR may be quashed when “the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.”
Case Title: X v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 28
Quashing an FIR against a man accused of rape on the pretext of marriage, the Telangana High Court noted that the complainant and the accused were in a consensual relationship for five years and it cannot be alleged that accused had dishonest intention of luring the complainant into a sexual relationship and deceiving her.
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada, allowing the criminal petition, observed:
“The allegations would reveal that there was consensual relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. However, there is an alleged promise of marriage. The said promise of marriage is alleged to have been made five years prior to lodging of complaint. According to the contents of the complaint also, the physical relationship with the petitioner continued over a period of five years. The de facto complainant is aged 26 years as on the date of complaint, which means that when she entered into the relationship with the petitioner, she was 21 years old and was a working woman. So, she is well aware of the consequences and further, she mentioned in the complaint that when she conceived two years prior to lodging of the complaint, both of them decided to go for abortion which discloses that the de facto complainant also was willing for abortion. lt is reiterated that the de facto complainant was in a physical relationship with the petitioner for a period of five years.”
Case title: Kalluru Soubhagya v. State of Telangana
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 29
The Telangana High Court has granted bail to a woman accused in a prostitution case, holding that mere presence at the alleged brothel house without independent material demonstrating active involvement, is insufficient to justify continued detention.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sujana, allowing the criminal petition, observed:
“Having considered the submissions of both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, the allegation against the petitioner is that she acted as a sub-organizer in the alleged prostitution activity along with the main accused. However, at this stage there is no specific material to show that the petitioner owned the premises or was running the brothel house. The presence of petitioner at the premises alone, without any independent material showing her active role in managing the alleged illegal activity, requires to be examined during trial"
Case title: Telangana Small Scale Industries Steel and Wooden Furniture Manufacturers Association & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 30
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging supplementary agreements extending time for execution of a public tender, holding that non-participating bidders lack locus and that contractual extension of time is allowed if it is permitted under the tender conditions.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Surepalli Nanda observed:
"A bare perusal of the tender document, in particular point No.4 of the bid document clearly indicates that the validity of tender period is five (5) years and 45 days and clause 25 and 26 of the tender document, dated 26.04.2025 (referred to and extracted above) refers to delays and extension of time and clause 26 provides for levy of liquidated damages and therefore, it is settled law that when there is an extension clause and liquidated damages, time will not be the essence of the contract as held at Para 11, 32 and 35 of the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2022) 2 SCC 382 in Welspun Speciality Solutions Limited v. ONGC".
Case Title: Konatham Dhilip Kumar @ Konatham Dileep Reddy & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 31
The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against two individuals accused of circulating “fake news” on social media, holding that mere forwarding of content, without the requisite intent, does not attract offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sujana observed:
“Even assuming for a moment that the petitioners had circulated or forwarded such content, the essential ingredients of Sections 353(1)(c) and 353(2) of BNS are not attracted… The alleged posts, even if assumed to be made by the petitioners, do not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 353 BNS. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law.”
Case Title: Dr. Raghavender Siva Vijaya Chivukula v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 32
The Telangana High Court has held that in view of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act and governing precedent, a person facing pending criminal proceedings must first obtain a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the trial court for passport reissuance/renewal. Only thereafter can the passport authority consider the request, and such NOC does not by itself amount to permission to travel abroad.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka quoted from the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 194 of 2026, which had referred to Mahesh Kumar Agarwal and Nidhi Agarwal, as follows:
“In the light of the principle laid down… we are of the considered view that the appellant should make an application for seeking NOC from the concerned trial courts where criminal cases are pending against him. It is upon issuance of NOC that the appellant should file an application for renewal of the passport… Otherwise… issuance for a shorter period, ordinarily one year, in appropriate cases.”
Case Title: Durgam Venkatesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 33
The Telangana High Court has upheld the validity of the digital double-valuation system used in postgraduate medical examinations, holding that courts cannot interfere with academic evaluation merely on allegations of discrepancies in marks.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Renuka Yara observed:
“This Court lacks expertise in said arena… It is the domain of the valuators… to value the answer scripts… In any case, to avoid arbitrariness… whenever there is a difference of 15% or more, said paper is sent for valuation by a third valuator and therefore, the scope for arbitrariness is reduced.”
Case Title: M/s. The Bottle Restaurant and Bar v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 34
The Telangana High Court has held that freezing a bank account without establishing a prima facie nexus to a cognizable offence and without following due process amounts to a violation of fundamental rights, directing partial defreezing of a restaurant's bank account.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice E.V. Venugopal observed:
“The freezing of a citizen's bank account, in the absence of any cogent reasons and without establishing even a prima facie nexus of such account with the commission of any cognizable offence, amounts to a grave and unwarranted intrusion into the fundamental rights… Such an action… not only cripples the financial autonomy of an individual but also directly impinges upon the right to life… and the freedom to carry on trade… The power to interdict the operation of a bank account is an exceptional one… Any freezing order passed dehors such safeguards… cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”
Case Title: Gade Innaiah @ Gade Inna Reddy v. State of Telangana
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 35
The Telangana High Court has granted one-day interim (escort) bail to an accused in an NIA case to enable him to perform the 15th day funeral rites of his father, holding that the trial court failed to consider material placed on record regarding customary ceremonies by refusing extension of interim bail.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao observed:
“The appellant… specifically contended that with regard to the performance of 15th day ceremony… the rituals to perform on the said date… are not considered by the learned Designated Court… The appellant also filed Memorial Service Card… Therefore, we are inclined to grant interim bail… for a period of one day i.e., 14.03.2026.”
Case Title: S.P. Kasim Peera v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 36
The Telangana High Court has held that posts of Police Constable, Head Constable and Assistant Reserve Sub-Inspector in the Special Police Battalions are State cadre posts governed under Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975.
It further held that promotions to such non-ministerial posts cannot be governed by battalion-wise (local) seniority under the Andhra Pradesh Police (Special Police Battalions) Subordinate Service Rules1997.