CRLP/14726/2026 of Bathula Suman, Vs The State of Telangana on 17 September 2026

ORDER

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

2. The petitioner is sole Accused in Crime No. 410 of 2026 of Film Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, and facing accusations for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(i), 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 14726 of 2026

3. Heard Mr. G. Manoj Goud, learned counsel, argued on behalf of Mr. K. Sunil Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1-State. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.2/de facto complainant.

4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant became acquainted with the petitioner in the year 2023, and thereafter, they developed a relationship and had physical relations. The petitioner is alleged to have collected a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from the de facto complainant on different pretexts. However, in 2026, as the petitioner allegedly started avoiding her, several quarrels took place between them. The de facto complainant completely stopped communicating with the petitioner from 18.08.2026 and also informed him that she was not interested in marrying him.

4.2. On 25.08.2026, the petitioner is alleged to have called the de facto complainant over the phone, informing her that he was unwell and requesting to meet her. Acceding to his request, she shared her location with him. The petitioner thereafter went to the said location and, after visiting a hospital, returned with her to her hotel room. In the evening, he allegedly insisted on having physical intimacy with her. When she refused, the petitioner is alleged to have beaten her and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. Thereafter, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 14726 of 2026

alleging that the petitioner had been harassing her, had taken money from her, and, despite her unwillingness to marry him, had physically exploited her against her will. Based on the said complaint, a crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the de facto complainant and that, even according to the complaint, the petitioner and the de facto complainant were in a consensual relationship. He further submits that, in fact, on the relevant date, the de facto complainant had called the petitioner and communicated with him through WhatsApp, insisting that money be transferred to her. It is also submitted that she had approached the petitioner’s house and taken possession thereof after breaking open the lock.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that the de facto complainant, along with her henchmen, had harassed the petitioner’s parents by frequently visiting their house and threatening the family members, which, according to the petitioner, is also reflected in the WhatsApp messages. It is contended that, bearing a grudge against the petitioner, the de facto complainant falsely implicated him in the present case. Nevertheless, the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and, therefore, prays that he be granted anticipatory bail.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 14726 of 2026

6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the de facto complainant had categorically named the petitioner and alleged that she had developed a physical relationship with him on the promise of marriage, as well as that she had been subjected to financial exploitation. It is further submitted that, even after the de facto complainant ended the relationship, the petitioner allegedly approached her and physically exploited her against her will.

6.2. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, these allegations disclose a clear prima facie case against the petitioner. However, as the investigation is still pending, the petitioner’s presence may be required for custodial interrogation for the purpose of effective investigation. Accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the material available on record.

8. It is well settled that while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court must balance the individual's liberty with the interests of a fair and effective investigation. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, the Constitution Bench held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The Constitution Bench

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 14726 of 2026

in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, reiterated that the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the possibility of influencing witnesses or obstructing investigation, and the interests of a fair investigation and trial are relevant considerations.

9. Further, at the anticipatory-bail stage, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or undertake a mini-trial to determine the ultimate truth of the allegations. The Court must assess the accusation at the threshold and determine, on the material available, whether custodial arrest is warranted. Mere pendency of investigation does not, by itself, render custodial interrogation indispensable; the necessity of such interrogation must be assessed having regard to the nature of the accusation, the role attributed to the applicant, the material required to be collected, and the applicant's willingness to cooperate. At the same time, the relief cannot be granted in a manner that frustrates or impedes a fair investigation, and appropriate conditions may therefore be imposed to secure cooperation and prevent interference with the investigation or judicial proceedings.

10. In the instant case, the petitioner and the de facto complainant are majors and had been acquainted and in a relationship for a considerable period. The existence of such prior relationship, by itself, cannot determine the truth or otherwise of the subsequent allegation of forcible sexual intercourse. The specific allegation relating to 25.08.2026 requires

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 14726 of 2026

investigation, particularly in the light of the rival versions. The petitioner's defence that the relationship was consensual and his allegations concerning the conduct of the de facto complainant are matters which cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage.

11. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the rival versions, the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and the absence, at this stage, of material demonstrating that his custodial interrogation is indispensable, this Court is of the view that the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail merits consideration. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure his availability and cooperation during investigation and to safeguard the subsequent judicial proceedings.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:

(A) The petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Film Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, on or before 02.10.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest, the Station House Officer shall release the petitioner/Accused on bail on execution of 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.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 14726 of 2026

(B) The petitioner/Accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday and Saturday between 10:00 AM to 03:00 PM, for a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of his release on bail or until filing of the final result, whichever is earlier. (C) The petitioner/Accused shall remain available for interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and shall extend full cooperation with the Investigating Officer. (D) The petitioner/Accused shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (E) The petitioner/Accused shall furnish his complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change(s) therein. (F) The petitioner/Accused shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall he tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (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.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 14726 of 2026

13. 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. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 17.09.2026 svl