Telangana High Court
Bollu Kethawa vs The State Of Telangana on 28 July, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.34965 OF 2025
DATE OF ORDER : 28.07.2026
BETWEEN:
Bollu Kethavva
.....Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Chief Secretary,
General Administration (Spl. Law and Order)
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Three Others
... Respondents
Ms. Sahithi Sri Kavya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents.
ORDER:
(Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The Writ Petition has been filed for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to
produce the detenu and to set aside an order of detention dated
30.07.2025 passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Rajanna
Sircilla District (the respondent No.2) which was confirmed by the
Chief Secretary, General Administration (Spl. Law and Order)
Department, State of Telangana, Hyderabad (the respondent No.1),
by order dated 19.09.2025.
2
2. The writ petitioner claims to be the grandmother of the
detenu. The detenu was 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 a ‘Goonda’ under section 2(g) of the said Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
grounds of detention would indicate that the offences mentioned
therein relate to property disputes between the individuals.
Counsel submits that the alleged offences would hence fall within
the ambit of law and order problem as opposed to adversely
affecting the ‘public order’ by causing grave widespread danger to
life or public health as provided in the Explanation to section 2(a) of
the 1986 Act.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents seeks to defend the impugned order of detention dated
3
30.07.2025, confirmed on 19.09.2025, by urging that the 1986 Act
empowers the respondent No.2 to pass an order of detention under
section 3(2) of the 1986 Act upon a subjective satisfaction that
detention is necessary to prevent disruption of public order under
section 3(1) of the 1986 Act. Counsel submits that the impugned
order of detention was confirmed by the Government under section
12 upon receiving the opinion of the Advisory Board. Counsel
narrates the sequence of offences committed by the detenu which
indicates that the detenu was a habitual offender as defined in
section 2(g) – ‘Goonda’.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6. We first wish to advert to the grounds of detention in support
of the impugned order of detention given by the respondent No.2.
Grounds of Detention
7. The grounds of detention state that the detenu is a resident of
Chandurthy Village and Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District and was
engaged in labour work. The detenu committed cattle theft in 2023.
After a week, the detenu killed one Puli (Vaddera) Gangaram with a
boulder alleging that the deceased had given information regarding
the detenu’s involvement in cattle theft. Consequently, a rowdy
4
sheet was opened against the detenu in the Chandurthy Police
Station. The grounds of detention state that the detenu was
involved in several offences such as murder, theft, trespass and
criminal intimidation pursuant to which criminal cases were filed
against the detenu.
8. However, the Detaining Authority/respondent No.2 chose not
to rely on the above offences. The grounds of detention show that
only two offences committed by the detenu in 2024-2025 were
taken into account for the purpose of detention.
The Offences
9. The first offence – Crime No.129 of 2024 – was registered
under sections 333, 329(3), 115(2) and 351(3) read with section 3(5)
of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘the BNS’) i.e., for the
offences of house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or
wrongful restraint; criminal trespass; voluntarily causing hurt;
criminal intimidation by threatening death, grievous hurt,
or destruction of property by fire; and acting with common
intention. This incident occurred on 09.07.2024 at 11.45 hours at
Enagal Village of Chandurthy Mandal and was reported on
13.07.2024 at 19.00 hours by the complainant, Myakala Jalandhar.
The grounds of detention note that there were disputes between the
5
complainant and his neighbor, Gunti Mallesham. Gunti Mallesham
asked the detenu to help him in taking revenge on the complainant.
On 07.07.2024 at about 11.45 hours, the detenu, Gunti Mallesham
and others trespassed into the house of the complainant. Since the
complainant was not available at that time, the detenu and his
associates abused the complainant’s wife and sister in filthy
language, dragged them to the streets, beat them up in public and
threatened them with dire consequences. After commission of
offence, the detenu absconded from the village for more than two
months and finally was arrested on 16.09.2024. On interrogation,
the detenu admitted that he had committed the offence. The
statements of the eye-witnesses clearly established the involvement
of the detenu in the commission of offence. The detenu later
obtained bail and was released on conditional order on 23.10.2024
to appear before the Station House Officer, Chandurthi Police
Station, on every Wednesday for three months.
10. The second offence – Crime No.111 of 2025 – was registered
under sections 103 and 49 read with section 3(5) of the BNS
relating to punishment for murder; punishment of abetment if act
abetted is committed in consequence; and acting with common
intention. This crime occurred on 26.05.2025 at 17.40 hours near
Peddamma Temple, Chandurthy Village and Mandal and was
6
reported on the same day at 18.30 hours by the complainant, Bollu
Rajaiah. The grounds of detention note that the agricultural lands
of the complainant and the detenu are situated adjacent to each
other at the outskirts of Chandurthy Village and they had disputes
over the boundaries of the land. Earlier, a case was registered
against the detenu at Chandurthy Police Station. The detenu, with
the instigation of his mother, hatched a plan to kill the wife of the
complainant. On 26.05.2025, the detenu, upon noticing that the
complainant and his wife, Bollu Mallavva, were going to their
agricultural field, went to a fruit shop, picked up a coconut cutting
knife in the absence of the vendor and waited at Peddamma Temple
for the complainant and his mother. When the deceased Bollu
Mallavva reached Peddamma Temple at about 17.40 hours, the
detenu attacked her by hacking her with the coconut cutting knife
causing multiple injuries on the head, neck, chest and other parts
of the body thereby causing instant death due to such injuries.
11. The grounds further note that inhabitants of the locality,
devotees of Peddamma Temple and the general public were
extremely frightened by the brutal acts of the detenu due to the said
incident. The said incident adversely affected the everyday life of
the people of Chandurthy Mandal. The offence was also telecast in
the electronic media and published in the print media. The grounds
7
record that the evidence collected in the crime including the
autopsy report of the medical officer, Government Hospital,
Vemulawada, the weapon used in the crime clearly established the
involvement of the detenu in the commission of offence. We have
also seen the material papers linking the detenu to the crimes. The
records reveal the following facts.
(i) The incident of the detenu coming to the Police Station
with the crime weapon (coconut cutting knife), voluntarily
surrendering the weapon and admitting his guilt was
videographed. The Case Diary Part-II of the Police Station,
Chandurthy Police Station regarding the
confession/examination of the detenu on 27.05.2025 is on
record.
(ii) The Statement of the eyewitness in the second crime is on
record. The eyewitness/Ponnala Srinivasa Rao states –
‘we terrifying with the activities Bollu Manoj’
The eyewitness further states –
‘the detenu has earlier killed one Vaddera Gangaram by
hitting him with a stone’
8
(iii) The Statement of Bollu Rajaiah, husband of the deceased
Bollu Mallavva, in the second crime is on record. Bollu
Rajaiah states that he found his wife in a pool of blood with
multiple knife injuries on different parts of her body after
his wife was attacked with a coconut cutting knife near the
Peddamma Temple.
(iv) The opinion of the Panchayatdars is on record. The
opinion is to the effect that the agricultural lands of the
complainant (Bollu Rajaiah) and the detenu are at the
outskirts of Chandurthy Village adjacent to each other.
Disputes led the detenu hatching a plan to kill the
complainant’s wife with the instigation of the mother of the
detenu. The detenu ultimately killed the complainant’s
wife (Bollu Mallavva) near the Peddamma Temple on
26.05.2025 at 17.40 hours.
(v) The Post-mortem Report dated 27.05.2025 regarding the
injuries in relation to the second crime is on record as well
as the Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory,
Telangana and the Confession and Recovery Panchanama
dated 27.05.2025 are on record.
9
(vi) The opening of a Rowdy Sheet against the detenu dated
27.07.2024 by the Superintendent of Police, Rajanna
Sircilla District, is also on record.
The Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986
12. The Act seeks to prevent commission of dangerous activities
which are prejudicial to the maintenance of ‘Public Order’. The
1986 Act was amended in 2018 by expanding the list of punishable
‘dangerous activities’ by including anti-social elements who have
committed the activities mentioned in section 2 of the 1986 Act.
The present case falls under section 2(g) which classifies a person
as a ‘Goonda’ in the following words:
‘2 (g) “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.’
13. Section 2(a) of the 1986 Act clarifies the words ‘acting in any
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’ in relation to
the offenders mentioned in the Act, including a boot-Legger, dacoit,
drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender, Spurious Seed
10
Offender, Insecticide Offender and a White Collar engaging in any of
the activities, which adversely affect or is likely to adversely affect,
the maintenance of public order.
14. The Explanation to section 2(a) of the 1986 Act contemplates
that ‘public order’ shall be deemed to have been affected adversely,
if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in section
2(a) directly or indirectly cause or is calculated to cause any harm,
danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public
or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life or
public health.
15. Therefore, the commission of any of the ‘dangerous activities’
specified under section 2 of the 1986 Act by any of the persons,
defined under section 2(b) – (x), may result in orders of detention of
such persons under section 3(1), upon satisfaction of the
Government that any of the offenders/persons named under section
2(b) – (x) is required to be prevented from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Section 3(2)
authorises the jurisdictional District Magistrate or the
Commissioner of Police to pass an order in writing directing the
exercise of powers detaining such offender under section 3(1), upon
satisfaction that it is necessary to do so having regard to the
11
circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the
local limits of a concerned jurisdiction. The proviso to section 3(2)
while limiting the detention to three months, authorises the
Government to extend the period from time to time not exceeding
three months at any one time upon satisfaction that it is necessary
to extend the order of detention.
16. Section 3(3) of the 1986 Act casts an obligation on the District
Magistrate and Commissioner of Police to report the fact of
detention to the Government along with the grounds under which
the order has been made and the particulars which have a bearing
on the subject matter. Such order shall not remain in force for
more than 12 days unless it has been approved by the Government.
‘Goonda’
17. ‘Goonda’ is defined in section 2(g) of the 1986 Act as a term
person who habitually commits or attempt to commit or abets the
commission of offences punishable under Chapters XVI, XVII or
XXII of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘). Chapter XVI relates to
offences affecting the human body, offences against the property
and criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance. The element of
habituality is an essential criterion for being classified as a ‘Goonda’
under section 2(g).
12
18. Section 2(g) must be read in conjunction with section 2(a),
and the Explanation thereto. The ‘Goonda’ must act in a manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or be engaged in or
make preparations for engaging in any of the activities which may
adversely affect or is likely to adversely affect the maintenance of
public order. The Explanation to section 2(a) clarifies that public
order may be adversely affected where the activity of a ‘Goonda’
directly or indirectly causes harm, danger or causes alarm, or a
feeling of insecurity among the general public or a section thereof or
causes grave or widespread danger to life or to public health.
19. The specific words used in the Explanation to section 2(a)
would make it clear that it is not necessary that the ‘general public’
or the public at large should be harmed or potentially harmed for
public order to be adversely affected. The threshold of section 2(g)
would be satisfied, even if a section of the public is adversely
affected. As stated above, section 3(1) empowers the Government
to make an order directing such person to be detained in order to
prevent him/her from acting in a manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order.
20. Sections 2(a) and the Explanation, 2(g) and 3(1) are required
to be read together and placed in the context of the present facts. It
13
should also be stated that disruption of maintenance of public order
entails fear, alarm, or insecurity amongst a section of the public
besides any act causing any direct or indirect harm. Therefore, an
offence committed in a public place and in full public view would
amount to adversely affecting public order. Further, any act which
is accompanied by a display of force, violence and aggression
leading to death or grievous harm, committed in full public view,
would also satisfy the requirement of disruption of public order.
Habitual Offender
21. The Detaining Authority took only two offences committed by
the detenu for consideration for passing the impugned order. The
earlier offences of cattle theft in 2023 and the murder of one Puli
(Vaddera) Gangaram by hitting with a boulder were not taken into
consideration.
22. The first crime was committed on 07.07.2024 when the
detenu, along with others, trespassed into the house of the
complainant and verbally abusing the family members of the
complainant in filthy language, dragging and beating them on the
road and threatening them with dire consequences. The detenu
absconded thereafter and was arrested after two months i.e., on
16.09.2024 and was released on conditional bail on 23.10.2024.
14
23. The second crime was committed by the detenu on
26.05.2025 i.e., within seven months of being released on bail. The
detenu attacked the wife of the complainant, Bollu Mallavva, near
the Peddamma Temple with a coconut cutting knife and hacked her
with the knife causing multiple injuries on the body of the victim
which caused immediate death of the victim.
24. The first crime was committed on 07.07.2024 at 11.45 hours
and the second crime was committed on 26.05.2025 at 17.40
hours. Both the crimes were committed in a public place and in full
public view.
25. The element of ‘habituality’ is evident from the fact that the
detenu obtained bail in the first offence and resorted to the second
offence within seven months of his release. It should be pointed out
that the element of ‘habituality’ need not be a series of offences but,
more importantly, a propensity to commit an offence despite being
brought within the machinery of the criminal law. The two offences,
consecutively committed, was the same criminal intention to
intimidate and cause injury to the victims. The consecutive
offences reflected a propensity to commit such crimes, and amounts
to ‘habituality’. The acts of the detenu in hatching a plan to kill
Bollu Mallavva in the second offence by watching her movements on
15
26.05.2025 when she went to the agricultural field, procuring a
coconut cutting knife from a fruit shop and waiting at the
Peddamma Temple for Bollu Mallavva to arrive, would show the
active working of a mind which is inclined to commit the crime
notwithstanding the earlier arrest.
Public Order
26. Public order encompasses a larger arena than law and order.
While law and order essentially involves a private offence committed
between two or more persons on account of a private dispute, public
order, on the other hand, requires the offence to be committed in
full public view, in a public place and with the consequent
knowledge of the public of the offence. The detenu committed the
first offence on 07.07.2024 by dragging the wife and sister of the
complainant to the public road, beating and threatening them with
dire consequences. The nature of the offences committed was on a
larger scale involving witnesses unconnected to the crime, as
opposed to being carried out within closed doors away from the
public gaze.
16
Alarm or Feeling of Insecurity
27. Adverse effect on public order is linked to fear, alarm, or
insecurity as required under the Explanation to section 2(a) of the
1986 Act. The fear and alarm would be attending factors to any
offence of a violent and exaggerated nature which is committed in
full public view. The first offence of dragging the victims on the
public road, abusing, beating and threatening them would be
sufficient to cause alarm and panic amongst the general public or at
least a section of the public who have witnessed the offence. The
second offence was even more blatant and violent, in which Bollu
Mallavva, an elderly woman, was attacked in full public view near
the Peddamma Temple in the early evening hours with a coconut
cutting knife. The brutality of the offence was telecast and
published in the print and electronic media. The grounds of
detention records that the first offence terrified the people in the
locality while the second offence resulted in the people of
Chandurthy Mandal being in the grip of fear and shock, after
witnessing the offence or having read about the offence in the
media.
17
The Defence of a Private Land Dispute between the Detenu and
others
28. The narration of the offences belies the stand taken on behalf
of the detenu. The first offence clearly records that disputes were
between the complainant and the complainant’s neighbor Gunti
Mallesham. Gunti Mallesham informed the fact of the disputes to
the detenu/B.Manoj, who was already a rowdy-sheeter by that time,
and asked the detenu to take revenge on the complainant. This
shows that the detenu did not have any personal interest or any
dispute with regard to land or otherwise with the wife and sister of
the complainant. The second offence records that the agricultural
lands of the complainant and the detenu were adjacent to each
other at the outskirts of Chandurthy Village and both of them had
disputes over the boundaries of the land. Hence, the contention
that the offences arose from private disputes related to property
matters is contrary to the record.
29. We have already referred to the evidence collected by the
Authorities linking the crime to the detenu and we do not wish to
reiterate the same.
18
Case Law
30. Preventive detention is a precautionary measure which is
exercised in reasonable anticipation of repetition of a crime which
has already been committed. An order for preventive detention may
be made before or during prosecution or even in anticipation of or
after discharge or acquittal 1. There is sufficient case law on
preventive detention being a drastic and hard law which should
ordinarily not be used for clipping the wings of an accused if
criminal prosecution would suffice 2. However, in Kamarunnisa v.
Union of India 3, the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice A.M.
Ahmadi, noted that,
‘eternal vigilance on the part of the authority charged with the
duty of maintaining law and order and public order is the price which
the democracy in this counter extracts to protect the fundamental
freedoms of the citizens’.
31. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Haradhan
Saha v. State of W.B. 4 laid down the principles for testing the
validity of a detention order. The Supreme Court held that merely
because of the detenu is liable to be tried in a criminal Court for the
1
Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B., (1975) 3 SCC 198
2
Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, (1984) 3 SCC 14
3
(1991) 1 SCC 128
4
(1975) 3 SCC 198
19
commission of a criminal offence would not by itself debar the
Government from taking action for his detention under The
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. It was also held that
the fact of a person being arrested and subsequently being enlarged
on bail or steps taken against him under The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 may not be a bar against the District Magistrate
issuing an order of preventive detention. The Supreme Court went
further to hold that the mere circumstance of the detention order
being passed during pendency of the prosecution will not violate the
order.
32. Hence, the Detaining Authority must reach a subjective
satisfaction on the basis of cogent material that there is a real
possibility of the detenu indulging in prejudicial activity if not
detained or after being released on bail.
33. The primary object of preventive detention is not to punish a
person for having done something but to intercept him before he
does it. It is not a penalty for past activities of an individual but is
intended to pre-empt the person from indulging in future activities
which are prohibited by a relevant law 5. In that decision, the
Supreme Court balanced the scales by observing that there is no
5
State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande, (2008) 3 SCC 613
20
doubt that while the Court has a duty to safeguard against any
encroachment on the life and liberty of individuals, the Court
should also not interfere with or impede the functions discharged by
the authorities who have the responsibility vested in them under
the law of the country.
Subjective Satisfaction of the Authority
34. Subjective satisfaction of the Authority is a condition
precedent for the exercise of the power of detention and the Court
must examine whether the requisite subjective satisfaction has
been arrived at for confirming the order of detention. The Court
cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the subjective
satisfaction unless the grounds stated are bereft of any supporting
material. The material before the Detaining Authority must lead to
the inevitable conclusion that the offences threaten public life and
cause or may cause harm and danger to the relevant section of the
public 6. In other words, the Detaining Authority should come to a
subjective satisfaction, expressed clearly in the grounds, that the
detenu would commit/repeat the offence if released on bail and
there is a real likelihood of repeating the offence.
6
D.M. Nagaraja v. Govt. of Karnataka, (2011) 10 SCC 215
21
35. The undisputed facts record that the second crime was
committed even after the detenu was arrested and subsequently
released on bail. The second offence was committed in broad
daylight and was widely covered in the media which further
contributed to alarm and panic among the public. Hence, we do not
find any lacunae in the impugned order of detention or consider this
to be a case where the Detaining Authority failed to provide reasons.
36. The learned Special Government Pleader relied upon a
decision of this Court dated 15.1.2025 in W.P.No.9893 of 2025,
wherein the offence committed by the detenu was of a repetitive and
brazen nature and it was held that the Court should not interfere
with the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority unless
the findings are vitiated by arbitrariness or the absence of evidence.
Cases relied on behalf of the Petitioner
37. In Dhanyam v. State of Kerala 7, the Supreme Court came to
the specific finding that the observations made in the detention
order do not express as to how the actions of the detenu are against
the public order of the State. The Supreme Court in Nenavath Bujji
7
2025 INSC 809
22
v. State of Telangana 8 made a distinction between the offence
affecting specific individuals (a law and order problem), as opposed
to affecting public order which has a greater impact on the society.
In that case, the detenu was detained under section 3(1) of The
Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 on the ground of
being a ‘Notorious Goonda’.
38. In Jahangir Bee v. The State of Telangana 9, a Coordinating
Bench relied upon Nenavath Bujji (supra) with regard to distinction
between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’ and on several other
Supreme Court judgments to set aside the order of detention.
However, the order records that the offence committed by the
detenu i.e., possessing of sharp edged/prohibited weapons led to an
alleged disturbance of public peace and tranquility. The present
case, in contrast, involves physical abuse and intimidation and a
violent murder committed in broad daylight in a public place.
39. Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu 10 was distinguished in
D.M.Nagaraja (supra) where the Supreme Court referred to the
grounds citing only one incident of selling expired drugs. The
Supreme Court pointed out that the grounds of detention were
8
2024 SCC OnLine SC 367
9
W.P.No.32727 of 2024, dated 07.02.2025
10
(2011) 5 SCC 244
23
bereft of details. In that case, the detenu had been detained under
the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,
Drug-Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders, and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 on the
allegation that the detenu was selling expired drugs after tampering
with labels and printing with fresh labels. The decision in Rekha
(supra) was distinguished by the Supreme Court in D.M.Nagaraja
(supra). Therefore, the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner do
not assist the case of the detenu.
Conclusion
40. The Detaining Authority arrived at a subjective satisfaction of
the reasons as to why the detenu was required to be detained under
the provisions of the 1986 Act. The definition of ‘Goonda’ under
section 2(g) requires repetition of offence to qualify as a ‘habitual
offender’. The Detaining Authority took into account two crimes
committed by the detenu on 07.07.2024 and 26.05.2025.
Significantly, the detenu had absconded after commission of the
first crime and had subsequently been arrested on 16.09.2024. The
detenu was released on bail on 23.10.2024. However, the arrest did
not deter the detenu from committing the second offence of
murdering an elderly woman in a public place in a pre-meditated
24
manner using a coconut cutting knife. Both the offences were
committed in public places and can reasonably be expected to lead
to fear, alarm and insecurity among the relevant section of the
public, i.e., those who witnessed the crimes. As stated above, the
second crime was telecast and published in electronic and print
media. The brazen nature of the offence, particularly the second
one, would naturally lead to a feeling of panic among the general
public and a threat to public life. The Detaining Authority has also
arrived at a subjective satisfaction which is clearly expressed in the
grounds of detention. The conclusions are based on the material
available before the Authority and upon undisputed facts.
41. Hence, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the
impugned order of detention dated 30.07.2025 or question the
legality of the findings arrived at by the Detaining Authority.
42. W.P.No.34965 of 2025, along with all connected applications,
is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
_____________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
DATE: 28.07.2026
TJMR
