CRLP/14088/2026 of Teki Krishna Sai Eshwar Prakash @Eshwar Sai Vs The State of Telangana, on 11 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.1559 of 2026 on the file of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

3. Heard M/s Nagurbabu Law Firm, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a report on 22.08.2026 stating that she and the petitioner are artists who had acted together in folk songs and, in that connection, had travelled and stayed together at various places. Subsequently, the petitioner expressed his interest in her and proposed marriage. Initially, she declined the proposal on the ground that the petitioner was already married and had a child. However, as the petitioner repeatedly requested her to accept his proposal, she eventually agreed. The petitioner allegedly assured her that he would obtain a divorce from his wife and marry her. Pursuant to such assurance and on the proposal of marriage made by him, the petitioner allegedly became close to the de facto complainant and, taking advantage of her love and the promise of marriage, established a physical relationship with her in the month of May at Brindavan Lodge, Jagtial. It is further alleged that, on 19.08.2026, the petitioner’s wife came to the place where the petitioner and the de facto complainant were staying and altercated with the de facto complainant, alleging that she was responsible for the breakdown of her marital family. In the aftermath of the said incident, the petitioner allegedly left the de facto complainant, refused to marry her, and thereafter absconded. Based on the said report, the present crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even according to the averments contained in the complaint, the de facto complainant was fully aware of the petitioner’s marital status and of the fact that he had a child. He further submits that, following the incident on 19.08.2026 at Vemulawada, the de facto complainant lodged a report before the Vemulawada Town Police Station, which was registered as FIR No.163 of 2026, wherein the allegations were specifically made against the petitioner’s wife. Thereafter, on 22.08.2026, she lodged another report before the Narsingi Police Station alleging that certain persons who had posted private videos on a social media platform were responsible for the said acts. In addition to the aforesaid proceedings, she has now lodged the present report against the petitioner alleging that he physically exploited her on the basis of a false promise of marriage.

5.2. Learned counsel submits that, significantly, no such allegation was made against the petitioner in the earlier representations. On the contrary, in those representations, the petitioner was referred to only as her friend. It is therefore contended that the actual grievance of the de facto complainant is against the petitioner’s wife and the persons allegedly responsible for posting the private videos on the social media platform, and that the present crime has been subsequently foisted against the petitioner in an attempt to come out of the situation. Learned counsel further submits that both the petitioner and the de facto complainant are adults and that the de facto complainant was admittedly aware of the petitioner’s marital status. According to him, in such circumstances, even assuming that the petitioner and the de facto complainant had a physical relationship, the same would be consensual and could not, in the facts of the case, be characterised as having been induced by a false promise of marriage. He further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. As the petitioner apprehends his arrest and coercive action at the hands of the police, prays that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

6.1. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the notice has been served on the de-facto complainant. Further, opposed the bail application and submitted that the complaint contains specific and direct allegations against the petitioner. It is specifically alleged that, while the petitioner and the de facto complainant were working together as artists, the petitioner developed an acquaintance with her and proposed a relationship on the basis of love and marriage, assuring her that he would obtain a divorce from his wife and marry her. It is further alleged that, on the strength of such assurance and representation, the petitioner sexually exploited the de facto complainant.

6.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the other crimes referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner were registered in respect of different causes of action and distinct transactions. Therefore, according to him, the averments made in those proceedings cannot be imported into or relied upon for the purpose of determining the allegations in the present crime. He further submits that the investigation is presently at a nascent stage and that only four witnesses have been examined so far. It is also contended that the presence of the petitioner may be necessary for custodial interrogation in order to facilitate an effective and comprehensive investigation into the allegations. On the aforesaid grounds, prayed for dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail.

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

8. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he established a physical relationship with the de facto complainant on the assurance that, after obtaining a divorce from his wife, he would marry her. A prima facie reading of the police report indicates that the de facto complainant was aware of the petitioner’s subsisting marriage and the fact that he had a child even at the time of the proposal. Despite such knowledge, she accepted his proposal on his assurance that he would obtain a divorce and marry her, pursuant to which the alleged physical relationship was established.

9. At the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or record definitive findings on disputed questions of fact, particularly with regard to the petitioner’s intention at the inception of the alleged promise. Whether the petitioner had no intention of fulfilling the promise from the outset, thereby rendering it a false promise, or whether his subsequent refusal to marry amounted only to a breach of promise, is a matter to be assessed on the basis of the material collected during the investigation and, if necessary, at trial.

10. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a promise to marry would constitute a false promise only where it is shown to have been false from its inception, having been made without any intention of being fulfilled, and where such promise directly induced the woman’s consent to the sexual relationship. A mere subsequent failure to fulfil the promise would not, by itself, establish that the promise was false. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608.

11. The complainant’s knowledge of the petitioner’s marital status is, therefore, a relevant circumstance, though it cannot, by itself, conclusively determine the petitioner’s intention at the inception of the alleged promise. While considering an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court must balance the nature and gravity of the accusation against the requirements of a fair investigation, including the role attributed to the accused, the possibility of his fleeing from justice, his antecedents, the likelihood of his repeating the alleged offence, and the necessity for custodial interrogation, as recognised in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565.

12. In the present case, having regard to the totality of the circumstances, and leaving open for determination during the investigation the question whether the petitioner possessed the requisite mens rea from the inception of the promise or whether his subsequent refusal to marry constituted merely a failure to fulfil the promise, and the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail.

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, on or before 26.09.2026. 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 Saturday 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.

11. The observations herein are confined to the consideration of the present application and the investigating agency is at liberty to conduct

the investigation in accordance with law and collect the necessary material.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 11.09.2026 mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14088 OF 2026

DATE: 11.09.2026

mmr