Around 1 a.m. on July 3, cab driver Angoth Thulja stepped out of his white sedan near Mangole X Road in Siddipet to use the washroom. When he turned around, his passenger had driven away in his car.
What Thulja did not know then was that the passenger was not a first-time thief. Police would later identify him as 32-year-old Pendyala Sudarshan, a habitual property offender with 13 criminal cases against him. More significantly, investigators found that some of his alleged associates were men he had met in prison.
The discovery has drawn attention to a question that investigators in Telangana are increasingly encountering: can relationships formed between offenders behind bars become criminal associations after they walk free?
For Thulja, 34, the night had begun as a routine long-distance booking. For nearly nine years, he had made a living driving his own car. On July 3, Sudarshan booked him from L.B. Nagar in Hyderabad to Komuravelli Mallanna Temple in Siddipet, about 111 kilometres away. The fare was fixed at ₹5,000. The passenger said he wanted to visit the temple, stay overnight and return the next afternoon.
They went around the temple, but the passenger said he was hungry and wanted biryani. Eventually, they began the return journey towards Hyderabad.
Near Mangole X Road, after crossing Kukunurpally, Thulja said he needed to use the washroom. “I got out, leaving the AC on. When I turned around, he zoomed away in my car,” Thulja recalls.
The car, worth about ₹2.5 lakh, was gone. It was only later, during investigation, that Thulja realised the passenger’s insistence on keeping the air-conditioner running at full blast could have been deliberate. Police link the tactic to ‘cold diuresis’, a physiological response to cold that can cause the bladder to fill faster.
Siddipet police arrested Sudarshan on August 6 while he was allegedly travelling in another stolen car. They subsequently recovered the two cars along with a motorcycle.
According to Siddipet Police Commissioner S.Rashmi Perumal, Sudarshan had previously been jailed for theft. During one such period of imprisonment, he allegedly met Aman Kar, an Odisha resident involved in motorcycle-related crimes. After his release, Sudarshan travelled to Odisha and stayed with Kar.
Two other men allegedly involved in stealing the second car, identified as Raghu and Praveen, were described by a Kukunoorpally police officer as Sudarshan’s “jail friends”.
The men, investigators say, were not necessarily part of a single gang before they went to prison. They had different criminal histories and contacts. Their association developed in the same environment and, allegedly, continued after their release.
A recent case in Hyderabad offers another example. On August 17, Langer Houz police arrested six men in an attention-diversion theft. Police say some of them had met while serving three to five-year sentences in different cases. After their release, they allegedly reunited and carried out a fresh offence.
The group allegedly targeted 71-year-old retired SBI bank manager Dama Mohan near Sha Ghouse Hotel in Langer Houz on August 1. Police recovered 13.5 tolas of gold ornaments, ₹7.4 lakh in cash and two vehicles.
Syed Asad, 46, an autorickshaw driver, allegedly played a key role in bringing the group together. Asad, Mohd Ibrahim and Syed Abdul Majeed were identified as suspected or history sheeters in Chandrayanagutta and Charminar, while Azar Hussain was a history sheeter in Santoshnagar police limits.
A senior police officer familiar with habitual offenders says such relationships were not unusual: “Prisoners will naturally communicate with one another because they are living in the same environment. Most conversations do not result in anything. But among habitual offenders, there can be instances where a contact made inside becomes useful after release.”
A prison acquaintance does not necessarily teach another person how to commit a crime. It could provide access to a market, information, a method or contacts in another State. Such relationships may remain dormant until an opportunity arises.
The inside network
A burglary case in Siddipet shows how such networks can extend beyond inmates.
Chikkudu Krishna alias Vengali Bikshapathi, 37, is described by police as a habitual offender with 63 cases registered across Telangana. On June 28, he allegedly broke into the house of Chintha Raj Kumar of Dubbak town while his family was away on pilgrimage and escaped with about 800 grams of gold and 5.5 kg of silver ornaments.
Police formed six teams and examined footage from nearly 500 CCTV cameras across Telangana and Andhra Pradesh before tracing Bikshapathi and recovering the ornaments.
During questioning, Bikshapathi allegedly disclosed links with people in prison, including Gopal, a warder at Nizamabad jail. Dubbak police subsequently named Gopal as accused No.2, alleging that he had helped Bikshapathi secure bail while he was incarcerated.
Jailhouse bonds: A 2024 research study, ‘Understanding the Risks of Criminal Behavior – A Study on Incarcerated’, involving incarcerated people in Telangana, found 83% of participants admitting to having committed crimes along with others.
| Photo Credit:
RAMAKRISHNA G.
Investigators alleged that Bikshapathi had agreed to share stolen property in return for the warder’s assistance. The Telangana Prisons Department suspended Gopal after his alleged involvement surfaced; he was absconding at the time.
Police also suspected the involvement of another warder and an Armed Reserve constable who were allegedly associated with Bikshapathi earlier. Investigators say he had contacts in Cherlapalli and Nizamabad jails and had developed relationships with people who could help him get out of jail. Police also allege that he supported prisoners’ families by selling stolen property and passing on money.
According to police, Bikshapathi was released on a Saturday night and allegedly committed another offence the following Sunday.
What research says
The influence of fellow offenders on criminal behaviour has been examined among prisoners in Telangana.
A 2024 study, ‘Understanding the Risks of Criminal Behavior – A Study on Incarcerated’, involving incarcerated people in Telangana, found 83% of participants admitting to having committed crimes along with others. The researchers identified peer influence, financial benefit, perceived low risk of conviction, the excitement associated with crime and opportunities to learn more about offending behaviour among factors influencing how offenders assessed risk.
One of the authors, Beena Chintalapuri, a professor of psychology and emeritus professor in the Prisons Department, cautions against viewing prison as a pipeline to repeat offending. “There are plenty of prisoners who chose not to go back to crime. We spend time with them, train and talk to them about how they can try and reflect on their acts,” she says.
Psychologist Ramana Prasad, familiar with correctional settings, says peer influence is not uniform.
“People are influenced by the social environment around them, but that influence is not uniform. A person already inclined towards offending may be more receptive to criminal information or relationships than somebody who is genuinely trying to reform. The prison environment can expose people to different experiences, but exposure alone does not determine what they will do after release,” he says.
That distinction matters in Telangana, where prisons hold people convicted of widely different offences and with varying criminal histories. They inevitably interact in barracks, during meals, at work and in common areas.
A senior officer in the Prisons Department says such interaction is unavoidable: “People are incarcerated together, so naturally they will communicate and form friendships. But the percentage of cases where this actually results in a new criminal association is very small.”
The challenge, the officer says, is to distinguish ordinary interaction from relationships that could undermine rehabilitation. Prison intelligence becomes important in identifying repeated associations, habitual offenders directing activities from inside and relationships that continue after release.
The network does not always look like a gang. The attention-diversion gang targeting ATMs in Hyderabad shows how criminal operations can be divided among people with different roles. The gang allegedly obtained debit cards from pickpockets, swapped them with those of vulnerable victims and used them to withdraw money.
Earlier in August, police arrested six people and seized 130 ATM cards, two POS machines, three autorickshaws, five mobile phones and ₹27,230 in cash.
The person stealing a card did not necessarily need to know how the fraud would be carried out, while the person making the withdrawal did not need to be a skilled pickpocket.
Criminal networks can, therefore, operate through specialised roles rather than a conventional gang structure. Investigators say the same principle of exchange can potentially take place in prison too.
A police officer dealing with organised property crime says investigators increasingly look beyond the immediate offence.
The entrance to the Central Prison at Cherlapalli in Hyderabad.
| Photo Credit:
RAMAKRISHNA G.
“When we arrest a habitual offender, we look at his previous cases, his associates, his movements and his contacts. If somebody who was earlier operating alone suddenly starts working with people involved in different activities, we want to know where those contacts came from,” he adds.
In Sudarshan’s case, the answer, at least for some of his alleged associates, appears in the police records: prison.
What follows a prisoner out of jail
For prison authorities, the larger concern is not simply what happens between inmates while they are incarcerated. It is what leaves with them.
A prisoner walks out with family responsibilities, employment difficulties and the challenge of rebuilding a life. Rehabilitation programmes are intended to help with that transition. But habitual offenders may also leave with relationships formed behind bars.
These cases are not proof that prisons routinely incubate organised crime, nor that incarceration itself creates criminality. They do, however, explain why investigators examine prison associations when looking into repeat offending.
Director General of Telangana Prisons, Soumya Mishra says the department continuously monitors the records of habitual offenders. The State’s recidivism (repeat offending) rate is around 4%, she points out.
The issue, then, is not isolating inmates from one another but identifying which relationships matter.
That becomes harder as crime grows more specialised. The person who steals a car may not be the one who disposes of it. The person who picks a pocket may not be the one who uses the stolen card. A stolen mobile phone can move through another market while drugs can cross State borders through people who never meet the eventual seller.
The challenge for prison authorities is to identify relationships that could enable crime without treating every interaction between inmates as a security concern. That means tracking patterns that emerge after release: former inmates who reconnect, habitual offenders who suddenly acquire new associates and contacts that resurface in fresh investigations.
Understanding these connections could become an important part of both crime detection and prison intelligence. For investigators, that could mean looking beyond the offence itself and asking not just who committed it, but where the connections that made it possible were formed.
