CRLP/14111/2026 of THRINADHA ASHWIN KUMAR BODDETI, Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA, on 23 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 accused No.1 in Crime No.218 of 2026 on the file of O.U.City Police Station, Hyderabad, facing accusations under Sections 316(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’).

3. Heard Mr.M.Krishna Chaitanya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant and the petitioner became acquainted with each other while they were in the United States of America, and their acquaintance subsequently developed into a relationship. It is alleged that, on the promise of marriage, the petitioner established a physical relationship with the de facto complainant. It is further specifically pleaded that, when the de facto complainant raised the issue of her caste, the petitioner assured and represented that neither he nor his family members had any objection to her caste.

4.2. It is also pleaded that, after the de facto complainant returned, the parents of both the de facto complainant and the petitioner finalized a date for their marriage. However, the marriage did not ultimately materialize. According to the de facto complainant, having regard to the conduct of the petitioner’s family members, she informed the petitioner about the same and sought his intervention, but her efforts proved futile. Subsequently, on 29.03.2026, the father and relatives of the de facto complainant are stated to have gone to the house of the petitioner’s parents. It is alleged that, in the presence of elders, they were abused by the accused by making remarks referring to the caste status of the de facto complainant. Based on the complaint lodged in this regard, the present crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/Accused No.1 has been falsely implicated in the crime and that the averments contained in the complaint do not disclose the essential ingredients of any of the alleged offences. He further submits that, even according to the complaint, although the marriage was proposed, it was not ultimately solemnized. According to the petitioner, it was the de facto complainant herself who declined to proceed with the marriage, and the WhatsApp conversations in support of this contention have been filed along with the petition.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner subsequently came to know that Section 69 of the BNS had been added during the course of the investigation. It is contended that no material has been placed on record to establish that, at the time of the alleged promise of marriage, the petitioner had any deceptive intention and contended that the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was not founded solely upon any promise of marriage, as alleged by the de facto complainant.

5.3. Learned counsel also points out that the petitioner and the de facto complainant are adults and that the alleged relationship was evidently consensual. Further, according to the de facto complainant, the alleged incidents forming the basis of the principal allegations occurred in the United States of America. The present crime has been registered within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court merely on the basis of the residence of the de facto complainant. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s parents and the other accused were served with notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. However, on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint, the petitioner apprehends arrest and coercive action at the hands of the police upon his return from the United States of America. The petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and is also ready to settle the issues with the de facto complainant. He therefore prays that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that specific allegations have been made against the petitioner. According to the complaint, the petitioner is alleged to have exploited the de facto complainant on the pretext of marriage and, ultimately, the marriage did not materialize. It is further submitted that there are allegations of caste-based remarks having been made by the accused during the subsequent incident. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the investigation is still in progress and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for the purpose of investigation. On these grounds, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition.

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

8. The specific allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.1 is that, while he and the de facto complainant were in the United States of America, he established a physical relationship with her on the alleged promise of marriage. Subsequently, a marriage proposal was initiated between the parties and their respective families agreed to the proposed marriage. However, the marriage did not materialize, inter alia, on account of the dispute concerning the community/caste status of the de facto complainant.

9. At the stage of considering anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or record definitive findings on disputed questions of fact. The relevant considerations include the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the possibility of interference with the investigation or judicial process, and the necessity of custodial interrogation. The principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, govern such consideration.

10. In the present case, the circumstances in which the relationship commenced, the nature of the alleged promise, the petitioner's intention at its inception, and the reasons for the subsequent failure of the proposed marriage are disputed questions requiring consideration on the basis of the investigation material and, if necessary, at trial. At this stage, the petitioner’s defence or the material relied upon by him cannot be conclusively adjudicated.

11. The allegation under Section 69 of the BNS requires consideration of whether the promise to marry was made without any intention of fulfilling it. Mere failure of a proposed marriage, by itself, does not conclusively establish the requisite deceptive intention at the inception. The Supreme Court has also recognized this distinction in Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat, 2026 INSC 987. The Court, therefore, refrains from expressing any final opinion on the merits and confines its consideration to whether custodial interrogation is presently necessary.

12. In the present case, the principal relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant is stated to have occurred in the United States of America, and the subsequent marriage proposal was pursued between their respective families. Both parties are adults. The allegations relating to the incident dated 29.03.2026, particularly the caste-based remarks, are principally against the petitioner’s parents/other accused, and the petitioner is not alleged to have been present at the said occurrence and the other accused who are part of that occurrence, stated to have been served notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

13. The Court is also conscious of Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The bar against anticipatory bail operates where the allegations disclose a prima facie offence under the said Act. As held in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, where the complaint does not disclose a prima facie offence under the Act, the statutory bar would not operate. At this stage, the Court is required to examine the allegations only to the limited extent necessary for determining the applicability of the statutory bar.

14. Having regard to the petitioner’s specific role, his alleged absence from the incident dated 29.03.2026, the nature of the allegations, the service of notices upon the other accused, and his willingness to cooperate, this Court finds that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not presently shown to be indispensable for a fair and effective investigation. Accordingly, considering the totality of the circumstances and the principles governing anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, the petitioner’s prayer for pre-arrest protection merits consideration, subject to appropriate conditions ensuring his availability and cooperation during investigation and trial and preventing interference with witnesses, evidence, or the due course of justice.

15. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioner/accused No.1 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, O.U.City Police Station, Hyderabad on or before 17.10.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release his 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 between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of ten (10) 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.

16. 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: 23.09.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14111 OF 2026

DATE: 23.09.2026

CHS