Cases
Search cases, clients, documents⌘K
RD
Ravi Daparthi
Managing Partner

Cases

Every litigation, tax and private-client case, drawn from eCourts
All cases
Litigation
Tax
Private client
Case
Case type
Court
Next date
Status
RD
Ravi Kumar Daparthi vs The State of TelanganaReg 4225/2024 · CNR SCIN010104272024
Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court
New Delhi
No pending listing
Allowed
RD
Ravi Kumar Daparthi vs The State of TelanganaCrPC 482 Quash FIR · Pending
Criminal Leave Petition
High Court, Telangana
Hon'ble K. Sujana
14 Aug 2026
Pending
RD
Ravi Kumar Daparthi vs The State of TelanganaCrPC 438 Anticipatory Bail · CNR HBHC010026612024
Criminal Leave Petition
High Court, Telangana
Chandrasen Law Offices
12 Jan 2024
Disposed
SR
Suresh Reddy vs Union of IndiaWP 8823/2025
Writ Petition
High Court, AP
Amaravati
2 Aug 2026
Pending
GT
Global Tex Pvt Ltd vs CITITA 442/2024
Tax Appeal
ITAT Hyderabad
Bench B
19 Aug 2026
Pending
AS
Ananya Sharma vs Ananya EstatesCS 12/2025
Civil Suit
City Civil Court
Hyderabad
5 Sep 2026
Pending

Create a case

Pick a method. Search eCourts to pull everything in, or enter it yourself.
Fields marked with an asterisk are required.
Case
Registration & numbers
Team
RDRavi DaparthiLead SNSneha NairAssociate
AKArjun KapoorAssociate
PVPriya VermaJunior
MIMohan IyerOf counsel
Consultant lawyersOptional
External counsel added for opinion. Not system users.
Drop a petition, order sheet or memo of parties PDF or DOCX. LawVyn reads it, extracts the case details and matches them on eCourts.

Ravi Kumar Daparthi vs. The State of Telangana Appeal allowed

Supreme Court of India, New Delhi Criminal Appeal Petitioner / Appellant Coram: Hon'ble M.M. Sundresh & Hon'ble Aravind Kumar
Reg no4225/2024 Filing no10427/2024 CNRSCIN010104272024 More details
Filed5 Mar 2024 Registered16 Oct 2024 BenchDivision Bench SectionCriminal Disposal9 Jun 2026 Court statusAllowed
Latest development Leave granted & appeal allowed Order(7) · 15 Oct 2024 · Division Bench Open the order →

Case journey

6 milestones
Case filed at Supreme Court registry5 Mar 2024 · Filing no 10427/2024
First listing · notice issued29 Jan 2024 · Order(1)
Interim stay to continue3 May 2024 · Order(3)
Registered as Criminal Appeal16 Oct 2024 · Reg no 4225/2024
Leave granted & appeal allowed15 Oct 2024 · Order(7)
Final status: Allowed9 Jun 2026 · Post-allowance compliance pending

Upcoming

+ Add
Next hearing
Aug
12
Listing before the BenchSupreme Court · 10:30 AM · from eCourts
Before this hearing
20 Aug
Draft rejoinder due
28 Aug
Client review call

Notes

Case team
RD
Ravi Daparthi15 Oct 2024Delete

Appeal allowed today. Sneha, please prepare the certified-copy application and diary the service deadline.

SN
Sneha Nair3 May 2024Delete

Mediation reference noted. Interim stay continues, so no urgency on the counter — will keep watching the next-hearing feed.

Key documents

All documents
Order(7) — leave granted & allowedFinal Order · 15 Oct 2024
Latest order
Petition / SLPCase paper · 5 Mar 2024 · 24 pages
Our filing
Order(3) — interim stayInterim Order · 15 Feb 2024
Court order

Linked cases

+ Link
Anticipatory Bail (CrPC 438)High Court of Telangana
DisposedArises from
Quash FIR (CrPC 482)High Court of Telangana
PendingConnected
Criminal AppealSupreme Court of India
AllowedThis case

Attorneys & parties

Petitioner / Appellant
1Ravi Kumar Daparthi
Our lawyers
1Ravi DaparthiLead
2Sneha NairAssociate
3B. Shravanth ShankerAdvocate on record
4Meena RaoConsultant
+ Add Lawyer + Add Consultant Lawyer
Respondents
The State of Telangana
Premchand Kolli
Opponent advocates
Goutham Shivshankar
Devina Sehgal
+ Add advocate

Similar reference cases

AI matched
Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar Supreme Court of India · 2014 · Criminal Appeal No. 1277/2014 CrPC 41AArrest guidelinesBail
94%match
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India · 2011 · (2011) 1 SCC 694 Anticipatory bailCrPC 438
89%match
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs State of Punjab Supreme Court of India · 1980 · (1980) 2 SCC 565 Anticipatory bailConstitution Bench
82%match
State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal Supreme Court of India · 1992 · 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 Quash FIRCrPC 482
76%match
Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of Uttar Pradesh Supreme Court of India · 2014 · (2014) 2 SCC 1 FIR registrationPreliminary inquiry
71%match
Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. Supreme Court of India · 1994 · (1994) 4 SCC 260 ArrestArticle 21
68%match
View full similarity report →

Documents

Order(7) — leave granted & allowedFinal Order · 15 Oct 2024
Latest order
Petition / SLPCase paper · 5 Mar 2024 · 24 pages
Our filing
Our filings Court orders Opponent filings
Petition / SLP24 pages · 5 Mar 2024
Order(1) interimInterim Order · 29 Jan 2024
Implead Petition (IA/1)Premchand Kolli · 22 Jan 2024
Order(3) interim stayInterim Order · 15 Feb 2024
Counter affidavitState of Telangana · 20 Feb 2024
Order(7) leave granted & allowedFinal Order · 15 Oct 2024

Case journey

6 milestones
Case filed at Supreme Court registry5 Mar 2024
SLP filed against the Telangana High Court order. Assigned Filing no 10427/2024.
First listing · notice issued29 Jan 2024
Order(1) — notice issued to respondents; interim protection recorded.
Interim stay to continue3 May 2024
Order(3) — interim stay continued; case referred to mediation.
Registered16 Oct 2024
Registered as Criminal Appeal, Reg no 4225/2024.
Leave granted & appeal allowed15 Oct 2024
Order(7) — leave granted and appeal allowed by the Division Bench.
Final status: Allowed9 Jun 2026
Disposal recorded on eCourts. Post-allowance compliance pending.
Court dates sync from eCourts into your LawVyn Calendar automatically. Upcoming items stay pinned in the side panel.
72%Favourable

Strong likelihood of a favourable outcome

Based on 18 factors across this case and its linked High Court cases.

In our favour9Against us9
In our favour (9)
Leave granted. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed in terms of the prayers.High
Point: Leave granted, appeal allowed (Order 7).
Final Order dated 14-Oct-2024
Why this helps us: A merits-based allowance by the Bench sets the strongest possible baseline; any further challenge must overcome this reasoned finding.
Add your argument to strengthen this point:
The interim protection granted earlier shall continue during the pendency and until further orders.High
Point: Anticipatory bail continued at the High Court.
HC Order dated 22-Aug-2024
Why this helps us: Continuous protection with no breach on record removes the primary lever the State could use to escalate.
Add your argument to strengthen this point:
The interim stay granted on 03-Apr-2024 shall stand extended until the next date of hearing.High
Point: Interim stay held at every listing.
Roznama consolidated (Apr–Sep 2024)
Why this helps us: An unbroken chain of stays across seven listings shows the court's consistent view that the balance of convenience lies with us.
Add your argument to strengthen this point:
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. Rao and Hon'ble Ms. Justice K. Iyer — present at all listings.Med
Point: Same Division Bench heard it throughout.
Cause List extracts
Why this helps us: Bench continuity means the Bench is already familiar with the record, reducing the risk of a fresh, adverse view on the same facts.
Add your argument to strengthen this point:
Parties are referred to the Mediation Centre; report to be placed on the next date.Med
Point: Case referred to mediation early.
Order dated 11-Jun-2024
Why this helps us: Early court-annexed mediation signals judicial preference for a negotiated exit and softens the adversarial posture on record.
Add your argument to strengthen this point:
I.A. Nos. 3, 5 and 8 of 2024 are allowed in terms of the prayer clauses.Med
Point: All our interlocutory applications allowed.
Consolidated IA Order
Why this helps us: Every discretionary call has gone our way — a pattern the court is unlikely to reverse without a strong new ground.
Add your argument to strengthen this point:
For the reasons recorded in paragraphs 14 to 27, the appeal is allowed.Med
Point: Final order is reasoned; high bar for recall.
Final Order dated 14-Oct-2024
Why this helps us: A speaking order with recorded reasoning is very hard to recall or review absent an error apparent on the face of the record.
Add your argument to strengthen this point:
List along with Crl.A. 214/2024 and Crl.A. 219/2024 for analogous hearing.Low
Point: Co-accused cases heard together.
Registry Note dated 05-May-2024
Why this helps us: Analogous hearing produced consistent outcomes across matters, leaving no divergent finding for the State to leverage against us.
Add your argument to strengthen this point:
Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the underlying investigation.Low
Point: No adverse observation on merits.
Final Order, para 29
Why this helps us: The absence of merit-side remarks blocks the prosecution from using the order itself to prejudice any collateral proceeding.
Add your argument to strengthen this point:
Against us (9)
The offences alleged are grave and involve substantial public interest, warranting a stricter view.High
Risk: Gravity of the underlying FIR 356/2023.
State's Counter-Affidavit, para 6
Why this hurts us: Gravity language invites a stricter view on liberty and gives the State a headline to push for cancellation of protection.
Our position: Relief is personal to the appellant; confine the benefit to Mr. Daparthi and treat the FIR gravity as already weighed at the bail stage.
Your argument:
List with connected matters; findings, if any, shall be read subject to the record of each.Med
Risk: Tagged co-accused could reopen issues.
Registry Note dated 05-May-2024
Why this hurts us: Tagging keeps the file linked to other accused, so any adverse finding elsewhere can be pointed to as a lever against us.
Our position: The tag is procedural; our appeal was decided on its own record with no adverse finding carried over.
Your argument:
Petition presented on 12-Mar-2024; registered on 04-Oct-2024 after office objections were cured.Low
Risk: Filing to registration gap (Mar to Oct).
Registry Diary Extract
Why this hurts us: A visible 7-month gap can be framed as laches or lack of diligence unless the registry cause is put on record up front.
Our position: The gap is administrative delay in the registry, not laches on our part.
Your argument:
Liberty is reserved to the State to take recourse to such remedies as are available in law.Med
Risk: State may seek review citing public interest.
Final Order, para 30
Why this hurts us: An express liberty clause gives the State a straightforward hook to file a review and prolong uncertainty.
Our position: A reasoned final order sets a high bar for review; a public-interest framing does not meet it.
Your argument:
Crl.M.C. 4471/2024 under Section 482 CrPC is pending consideration before this Court.Med
Risk: Quash petition under 482 still pending.
HC Pending Docket
Why this hurts us: A live parallel proceeding keeps the underlying FIR in play and could yield observations the State can carry back here.
Our position: The pending 482 petition is on a separate track and does not unsettle the allowed appeal.
Your argument:
Respondent No. 1 — State of Telangana; Respondent No. 2 — Complainant, Sri M. Rao.Low
Risk: Two respondents widen the opposition.
Memo of Parties
Why this hurts us: Two independent respondents double the surface area for filings and can prolong hearings even where grounds overlap.
Our position: Both respondents advance the same points; the opposition is broad but not deep.
Your argument:
Grant of anticipatory bail is not immutable and may be reconsidered on cogent grounds arising thereafter.Low
Risk: Anticipatory bail can be revisited.
State's Rejoinder, para 4
Why this hurts us: The pleading itself preserves the State's option to move for cancellation the moment any perceived breach arises.
Our position: Bail conditions have been complied with throughout; there is no trigger to revisit.
Your argument:
Ms. P. Sharma, Advocate, appears on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and shall be heard on the next date.Low
Risk: Complainant represented by counsel.
Order dated 18-Jul-2024
Why this hurts us: An actively represented complainant increases the volume of adverse pleadings and slows down otherwise clean listings.
Our position: Active representation is expected and does not weigh on the merits already decided.
Your argument:
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations are of a grave and serious nature.Med
Risk: Prosecutor will stress seriousness.
Written Submissions of the State
Why this hurts us: Framing the matter as grave and serious pushes the Bench toward a cautious view and can dilute the reasoning already recorded.
Our position: Seriousness was fully argued and weighed before leave was granted and the appeal allowed.
Your argument:
Ask across every filing, order and note on this case and its linked High Court cases. I answer from the record and cite the source.
Summarize where the case stands What are our strongest points? What will the opponent likely argue?
Choose a template
Certified copy applicationPost-allowance
Compliance reportTo the registry
Client update letterPlain-language
Suggested for this case: a certified-copy application, since the appeal is allowed and the certified copy must be served on the respondents.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA · APPLICATION FOR CERTIFIED COPY

Criminal Appeal No. 4225/2024 (arising out of SLP, CNR SCIN010104272024)

Ravi Kumar Daparthi … Appellant, versus The State of Telangana & Anr. … Respondents.

The Appellant most respectfully submits that this Hon'ble Court, by Order(7) dated 15 October 2024, was pleased to grant leave and allow the above appeal. The Appellant seeks a certified copy of the said order to enable service upon the Respondents and to complete post-allowance compliance.

It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Registry to issue a certified copy of Order(7) at the earliest.

Estimate to aid strategy, not legal advice.

Audit trail

Platform audit engine
Actor
Action
Target
Timestamp
RD
Ravi Daparthi
Shared case
Link to meena.rao@chambers.in
15 Oct 2024, 18:22
SY
System
Synced event
Order(7) from eCourts
15 Oct 2024, 16:05
SN
Sneha Nair
Uploaded document
Counter affidavit
20 Feb 2024, 11:40
RD
Ravi Daparthi
Created case
From eCourts record
5 Mar 2024, 09:15
Legal AIGrounded in Ravi Kumar Daparthi vs The State of Telangana
Ask me anything about this case. I read the filings, orders and notes on record and cite my sources.
Summarize where the case stands What are our strongest points? What will the opponent likely argue? Why is the confidence 72%?
Share caseRead-only link for a consultant
The link shows only
Link expiry
3 days
7 days
30 days
Custom days
Allow download Off = documents open in browser preview only. On = consultant can download.
The link is read-only and expires automatically. Revoke it any time.
Read-only preview What the consultant will see Expires in 7 days
Read-only. The link expires automatically and can be revoked any time.
Edit consultantExternal counsel details