CRLP/14361/2026 of T. PAVAN KUMAR, Vs The State of Telangana, on 17 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 Crime No.1791 of 2025 on the file of Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad, facing accusations under Sections 74, 329(3), 115(1), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

3. Heard Mr. Venugopal Julakanti, learned Counsel representing Mr.M.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Jithender, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 01.12.2025 stating that the petitioner was known to her and she had taken an amount of Rs.15-16 lakhs for establishing a cloth business at S&S Square, Mayuri Nagar, Beeramguda. It is alleged that, with a malicious intention, the petitioner thereafter began illegally interfering with the business of the de facto complainant, forcibly took possession of the shop keys, occupied the shop premises, and collected the daily sale proceeds without any lawful authority.

4.2. It is further alleged that, on 14.11.2025, during the evening hours, the petitioner came to the residence of the de facto complainant in a drunken condition and threatened to kill her. He is alleged to have brutally assaulted her and attempted to strangulate her. The de facto complainant managed to escape from the ground floor; however, it is alleged that the petitioner followed her, dragged her, and thereafter struck her with a metal bottle, causing a serious injury to her eye. She subsequently underwent medical treatment, and a Medico-Legal Case (MLC) was registered. According to the prosecution, the medical examination also revealed physical evidence of earlier assaults and threats. On the basis of the said report, the present crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the de facto complainant has lodged a series of complaints against the petitioner. In particular, he submits that a crime was registered on the very same day, i.e., 01.12.2025, at about 06:35 p.m. before the Ramachandrapuram Police Station, vide FIR No.742 of 2025, alleging an occurrence dated 15.11.2025. Thereafter, on 04.03.2026, FIR No.150 of 2026 was registered before the same Police Station, referring to alleged occurrences dated 29.12.2025, 23.01.2026, and 20.02.2026. Apart from the aforesaid cases, another crime was registered on the basis of a report lodged by the de facto complainant on 17.03.2026, vide FIR No.297 of 2026, wherein allegations of criminal breach of trust, cheating, criminal conspiracy, and threatening were made.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that none of the aforesaid reports contains any allegation of sexual assault attracting the provisions of Section 64 of the BNS. He submits that, immediately after registration of the present crime, the police visited the scene of offence and, in connection with the statements of the witnesses, called upon the petitioner to appear before them. Pursuant thereto, a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was issued to the petitioner. According to learned counsel, this factual position is also reflected in the alteration memo filed by the prosecution.

5.3. Learned counsel submits that, notwithstanding the aforesaid circumstances, at a subsequent stage and after a lapse of about four months, the investigating agency recorded the statement of the de facto complainant on 24.04.2026, wherein she is stated to have made an allegation of sexual assault allegedly committed on 11.11.2025. It is submitted that, on the basis of this subsequent allegation, the police proceeded to file an alteration memo altering the offences and also filed an application seeking the arrest of the petitioner.

5.4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner apprehends his arrest and other coercive action. Learned counsel submits that, having regard to the contents of the earlier complaints lodged by the de facto complainant, the absence of any specific allegation of sexual assault therein, the subsequent introduction of such allegation only in the statement recorded on 24.04.2026, and the omissions in the earlier averments of the de facto complainant, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any condition that may be imposed. He therefore prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in the interests of justice and to protect his personal liberty.

6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner’s contention that a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS had earlier been served upon him in connection with the statement of the de facto complainant is admitted. However, it is submitted that, subsequent to the recording of the statement of the de facto complainant, specific allegations attracting the provisions of Section 64(2) of the BNS emerged during the course of investigation. Consequently, steps were taken to alter the offences alleged against the petitioner, and an application was also filed seeking his arrest.

6.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offences alleged and the fact that the investigation is still in progress, the averments contained in the earlier complaints cannot, at this stage, be treated as conclusive. He submits that the revelations made during the course of investigation are relevant and material for determining the appropriate offences and for taking consequential investigative action, including alteration of the offences. It is further submitted that, for the purpose of conducting an effective and comprehensive investigation, the presence of the petitioner may be necessary and that custodial interrogation may be required. On these grounds, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition.

7.1. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/de facto complainant submits that the de facto complainant was compelled to lodge the various reports against the petitioner in the backdrop of certain disturbing circumstances and in relation to different causes of action. Therefore, according to learned counsel, merely because different crimes came to be registered at different points of time, no adverse inference can be drawn against the de facto complainant.

7.2. He further submits that the Medico-Legal Case (MLC) establishes that the incident occurred on 11.11.2025 and records the physical assault allegedly suffered by the de facto complainant. Learned counsel asserts that, owing to the circumstances prevailing at the relevant time, and particularly as the de facto complainant is the mother of two girl children, she could not disclose the alleged sexual assault at the first instance. It is submitted that, subsequently, when she was examined at the Bharosa Centre, she made a detailed statement regarding the occurrence and specifically alleged the commission of an offence against the petitioner attracting Section 64(2) of the BNS.

7.3. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation is still in progress and that the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may prejudice the investigation and adversely affect the interests of the de facto complainant. He submits that the materials available with the de facto complainant have already been furnished to the investigating agency. However, according to learned counsel, the investigating agency has been slow in taking appropriate action, which, in his submission, creates an impression that the investigation is being conducted in a manner favourable to the petitioner. Having regard to the circumstances of the case as a whole, the nature of the allegations, the subsequent statement of the de facto complainant, and the fact that the investigation is still underway, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant prays for dismissal of the petition.

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

9. It is admitted that Crime No.1791 of 2025 was registered on 01.12.2025 and that, after considering the material then available and the investigation conducted up to that stage, the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. There is no allegation that the petitioner failed to comply with the notice, violated its terms, or misused the liberty afforded to him. This is a relevant circumstance while considering the necessity of custodial arrest, though it is not, by itself, determinative of the petitioner’s entitlement to anticipatory bail.

10. Subsequently, on the basis of the statement of the de facto complainant recorded at a later stage, wherein an allegation of sexual assault allegedly committed on 11.11.2025 was made, the investigating agency took steps to alter the section of law by incorporating Section 64(2) of the BNS. The said allegation requires investigation in accordance with law; however, the mere alteration of the section of law does not, by itself, establish the truth of the allegation or render custodial arrest necessary.

11. At the stage of considering anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or undertake a mini- trial to determine the truthfulness of disputed allegations. The alleged improvement in the subsequent statement, the explanation for the delayed disclosure and its subsequent disclosure before the Bharosa Centre, and the evidentiary value of the rival versions are matters primarily falling within the scope of investigation and, if necessary, adjudication at the appropriate stage. The investigating agency is at liberty to collect further material and proceed in accordance with law.

12. The principles governing anticipatory bail are well settled. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Supreme Court identified, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, his antecedents, the possibility of fleeing from justice or repeating the offence, the likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and the effect of bail upon a fair investigation as relevant considerations.

13. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench reiterated that anticipatory bail is not confined to exceptional cases and that the Court must exercise its discretion having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the applicant, the possibility of influencing the investigation or tampering with evidence, the likelihood of fleeing from justice, and the circumstances of the particular case. Appropriate conditions may be imposed to safeguard the interests of a fair investigation.

14. Thus, the Court is required to balance the petitioner’s right to personal liberty with the legitimate requirements of a fair and effective investigation. The subsequent invocation of a serious penal provision cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive of the necessity for custodial arrest. Conversely, the earlier issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS does not create an indefeasible right to anticipatory bail if subsequent material demonstrates a genuine requirement for arrest.

15. In the present case, as noted above, after service of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the investigation has brought on record an allegation attracting Section 64(2) of the BNS. While the Court takes note of the subsequent introduction of the allegation of sexual assault, the explanation offered for its delayed disclosure, the contents of the earlier complaints and statements, the alleged improvements therein, and the surrounding circumstances relied upon by both sides, it would not be appropriate, at this stage, to finally adjudicate upon the truthfulness or evidentiary value of those matters. It is also borne out from the material placed before the Court that the de facto complainant and the petitioner are adults and that, according to the alleged statement of the de facto complainant, they have been in a physical relationship since 2022. These circumstances form part of the factual background of the case.

16. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation, the present stage of investigation, the subsequent allegation attracting Section 64(2) of the BNS, and the need to balance personal liberty with the interests of a fair investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail merits consideration, subject to appropriate conditions ensuring the petitioner’s availability for investigation and the judicial process.

17. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioner/accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad on or before 02.10.2026. 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 twelve (12) 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.

18. 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.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 17.09.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14361 OF 2026

DATE: 17.09.2026

CHS