CRLP/14581/2026 of Paara @ Para Lakshmi Narayana Vs The State of Telangana on 30 September 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No.775 of 2026 on the file of the Kukatpally Police Station, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, facing accusations under Sections 69, 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

3. Heard Mr. M/S Nagurbabu Law Firm, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a report dated 27.05.2026, alleging that she became acquainted with the petitioner through Instagram, a social media platform, as the petitioner, being a nutritionist, the de facto complainant would occasionally communicate with regarding diet-related matters. Subsequently, the petitioner is alleged to have proposed to her through WhatsApp, expressing his love for her and assuring her that he would marry her. Thereafter, he allegedly asked her to meet him at a hotel, which she initially declined. However, upon his insistence, she went to the hotel and, believing his assurance that he would marry her, entered into physical intimacy with him. After establishing such physical intimacy, the petitioner allegedly neglected her and ceased caring for her. When the de facto complainant sought an explanation from him, he would argue with her and, on the pretext of discussing their relationship, invite her to the same hotel where they had met earlier. During such meetings, he allegedly established physical intimacy with her again. Nevertheless, relying upon his assurances and believing in his professed love, she continued the relationship. Subsequently, although she shifted to different place, the petitioner allegedly continued to visit her and maintained a physical relationship with her. However, he failed to fulfil his promise of marriage and eventually blocked her on WhatsApp and other social media platforms. On these allegations, the de facto complainant contended that the petitioner had established and continued a physical relationship with her on the false promise of marriage. She accordingly sought appropriate action, pursuant to which the present crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and that the allegations levelled against him are unsupported by any incriminating material. It is further submitted that, even according to the petitioner, the parties became acquainted through Instagram, where the petitioner had disclosed his status, marital status, and other family particulars. Despite being aware of these circumstances, the de facto complainant entered into a relationship with him. Learned counsel, therefore, contends that, even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted at face value, the relationship between the parties was consensual, and no force or inducement on the part of the petitioner is alleged. It is further submitted that, as borne out by the complaint itself, the de facto complainant had voluntarily approached and met the petitioner, and that the alleged physical relationship was entered into of her own free will and consent.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that the de facto complainant had previously lodged similar complaints against another person on 20.02.2025 and 20.05.2025, alleging that the said accused had physically exploited her on the promise of marriage. It is also contended that, after lodging the present report, the de facto complainant approached the petitioner’s wife seeking a settlement and made efforts in that regard with a view to exploiting the petitioner. Further, referring to the averments in the complaint, learned counsel submits that the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant had allegedly continued since 2015 and that both parties are adults. According to the learned counsel, the conduct of the parties, viewed in the context of the present case, indicates that the relationship was consensual. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

5.3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Mahesh Dami Khare v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2024 SCC OnLine 3471) and Uday v. State of Karnataka [(2003) 4 SCC 46], contending that where parties enter into and continue a physical relationship without insisting upon the solemnisation of marriage, such conduct is indicative of a consensual relationship and does not, by itself, establish that consent was obtained under a misconception of fact. Accordingly prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application, submitting that the complaint specifically alleges that the petitioner induced the de facto complainant to enter into a physical relationship by making a false promise of marriage and continued to exploit her under the guise of such promise. It is further submitted that the investigation is still pending and is at a nascent stage, and that the petitioner’s presence may be necessary for custodial interrogation to facilitate an effective investigation. On these grounds, learned Additional Public Prosecutor seeks dismissal of the bail application.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.

8. The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is that he established a physical relationship with the de facto complainant on a false promise of marriage. The relationship allegedly continued since June, 2025. The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and contends that his marital status and other particulars were available on his social media profile and were within the knowledge of the de facto complainant.

9. While considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or record conclusive findings on disputed questions, which are matters for investigation and trial. The relevant considerations include the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, his availability for the judicial process, the possibility of absconding or tampering with evidence, and the necessity of custodial interrogation. The principles laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565], Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694], and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 1]

reiterate that such discretion must be exercised judiciously, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.

10. In the present case, even accepting the allegations at face value, the petitioner was already married when the relationship developed. Whether his marital status was disclosed on social media and known to the de facto complainant, whether he made a promise to marry, whether such promise was false from its inception, and whether the relationship was consensual or induced by misconception of fact are matters for investigation and, if established, trial. The distinction between a mere breach of promise and a false promise vitiating consent cannot be conclusively determined at this stage.

11. The petitioner has also pointed out that the de facto complainant had lodged similar complaints against two other persons prior to the present complaint. The prosecution has not placed any specific material warranting a contrary consideration. Though such complaints cannot, by themselves, discredit the present allegations, they constitute a relevant circumstance to be considered along with the other facts while assessing the relationship and the necessity for custodial interrogation.

12. Having regard to the duration of the alleged relationship, the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation and his undertaking to continue doing so, and in the absence of any material demonstrating that custodial interrogation is indispensable, this Court finds no compelling circumstance warranting his arrest. The mere apprehension that his presence may be required during investigation is insufficient, in the circumstances of the case, to deny the relief sought. The investigation can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the petitioner’s culpability, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail, subject to appropriate conditions.

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioner/accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Kukatpally Police Station, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, on or before 15.10.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release him on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer. (B) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Tuesday and Wednesday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of four (04) weeks from the date of his release on bail or until the filing of the final result, whichever is earlier.

(C) The petitioner shall remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation. (D) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation. (E) The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (F) The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (G) Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings before the court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

14. It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 30.09.2026 mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14581 OF 2026

DATE: 30.09.2026

mmr