HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court has raised serious concerns over what it described as “selective policing,” questioning why the police had refrained from arresting the accused in an attempt-to-murder case registered at Narsingi in November 2025 despite claiming to have collected evidence against them.
Justice T Madhavi Devi made the observations while hearing a writ petition filed by 70-year-old Bharatha Kumari Mamidi, who alleged inaction by the police against her daughter-in-law, Deeksha, and another accused, Sandhya Bannuri. The petitioner claimed the two attempted to kill her and her daughter by mixing a heavy dose of the sedative Zolpidem into their food.
The court questioned the police’s decision to merely issue notices to the accused instead of taking them into custody. “Why not adopt the same procedure in every case? Do not arrest anyone in attempt-to-murder cases,” the judge remarked, expressing concern over what appeared to be inconsistent enforcement of criminal law.
Government Pleader for Home Mahesh Raje informed the court that a chargesheet had already been filed and was awaiting cognizance by the trial court. He submitted that no arrest was made because Deeksha was pregnant. He further argued that the prosecution case primarily rested on the recovery of tablets and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary since no further material remained to be seized.
The court, however, questioned why the same approach had not been extended to the second accused. Justice Madhavi Devi observed that while pregnancy could explain the decision not to arrest one accused, it did not justify similar treatment for the other.
Referring to the investigation records, the judge noted that the charge sheet itself stated that Deeksha had allegedly procured the tablets in large quantities. The court questioned how the police could simultaneously claim there was insufficient evidence after attributing a role to the accused in the investigation.
Expressing concern over unequal treatment by law enforcement, the judge observed that many citizens are summoned and harassed even without strong cases, while others appear to receive preferential treatment. The court directed the government to file a detailed counter explaining why the accused had not been arrested and under what “special category” they were allegedly being treated.