CRLP/15111/2026 of Balusupati Siva Naga Ravi Teja @ Bahusupati Siva Naga Ravi Teja, Vs The State of Telangana, on 28 September 2026

O R D E R

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner – accused on bail in connection with Crime No.1196 of 2026 of P.S. Gachibowli, Cyberabad Commissionerate. The offence alleged against the petitioner – accused is punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

2. Heard Sri Ramesh Vishwanath, learned counsel representing Sri Jajula Naresh Kumar, learned counsel for

BRMR,J crlp_ 15111_2026

petitioner – accused and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent – State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant's own version reveals that a relationship is developed between the parties during 2025 while she was working as Teleperformance DLF, where the petitioner- accused was employed as a cab driver. The remand report’s apprehension is that the petitioner-accused would attack the complainant, finds no support anywhere in the FIR, complaint or the remand case diary. There is a gap of over eight months between the last alleged meeting (30.10.2025) and FIR [dated 08.07.2026], delay is not properly explained and column No.8 of the FIR states that there is no delay. Petitioner-accused is arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.08.2026, since then he is in jail. Entire investigation is completed. Counsel in support of his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Kunal

BRMR,J crlp_ 15111_2026

Rameshbhai Kalyani v. The State of Gujarat and another1 and prayed to enlarge the petitioner-accused on bail.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that police has made an application before concerned Court to record the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS which is pending consideration and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. De facto complainant has lodged a report before PS Gachibowli on 08.07.2026 and contended that in the year 2025, while she was working as Teleperformance DLF, she came in contact with the accused who was working as a cab driver. Accused obtained her mobile number from her supervisor, contacted her, expressed his intention to marry her and developed the relationship. Accused has induced the complainant to have physical relation by assuring that he will marry her. Accordingly, on 05.01.2025, they met at Rio Hotel, Kondapur, they had physical relationship and the last visit to Rio Hotel is on 30.10.2025. Basing on the said complaint, FIR came to be registered under Section 69 of BNS against the petitioner-accused.

1 2026 Law Suit (SC)1100

BRMR,J crlp_ 15111_2026

6. Petitioner-accused is arrested on 24.08.2026 at 21.30 hours and was produced before the concerned Magistrate for remand, since then he is in judicial custody.

7. As per the averments of the complaint, victim met the accused on 30.10.2025 and had physical relationship thereafter, he started avoiding her. On perusal of the FIR, column No.8, which states that there is no delay in lodging the complaint / information. There is a delay of almost nine months in lodging the complaint, but the reasons mentioned in column No. 8 of the FIR is that there is no delay in reporting the matter to the police.

8. In Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani1, Supreme Court observed at paragraph Nos.5 and 6, which reads as under.

5. In the present case, the FIR has been extracted by the High Court and it clearly indicates that the appellant and the complainant came into contact through a digital platform and a friendship developed between them, which later became a love affair. It is also stated in the complaint that the appellant communicated his desire to marry the complainant on the first physical meeting. The complainant is said to have succumbed to his entreaties and allowed sexual intercourse. This was on 12.02.2024 and again in April 2024, the victim is said to have stayed in a hotel for two days with the appellant. The statements made in the complaint clearly indicate a consensual relationship

BRMR,J crlp_ 15111_2026

and we do not find anything to find a deceitful conduct, of, the appellant having induced the complainant into sexual intercourse, which she succumbed to only on the promise to marry. Here we reiterate that on the first occasion when they met, the complainant succumbed to the appellant’s entreaties, is the specific statement made without even stating that it was on the promise to marry that physical relationship was permitted.

6. On the mere communication of the desire of the appellant to marry her, we are unable to find the appellant having used any deceitful means. In any event, the very complaint is that the appellant refused to marry her later, because his mother did not permit it, which indicates that the promise was made with all good intention, if at all it was made.”

9. The observations made by the Supreme Court in the above said decision is in respect of quashing of FIR. Hence, the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand.

10. Remand case diary goes to show that the respondent has altogether examined 11 witnesses, including the police officers.

11. This Court is conscious of the fact that statement of the victim under Section 183 BNSS has to be recorded. The complainant is aged about 25 years and the accused is aged about 28 years.

12. Record goes to show that major portion of the investigation is completed except recording the statement of

BRMR,J crlp_ 15111_2026

the victim under Section 183 BNSS. Petitioner – accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner – accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of learned X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Prasanth Nagar, Cyberabad. ii. The petitioner – accused shall appear before the respondent between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., on every Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation and thereafter, as and when required. iii. The petitioner – accused shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS). iv. Petitioner - accused shall not directly or indirectly contact or influence the victim till her statement is recorded and shall not induce or influence or threaten any of the prosecution witnesses.

BRMR,J crlp_ 15111_2026

v. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________________________

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J Date: 28.09.2026. YVL

BRMR,J crlp_ 15111_2026

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.15111 of 2026

(C.N.R No. HBHC010635822026)

Date: 28.09.2026

YVL