CRLP/12978/2026 of Mr. U. Srinivasulu reddy, Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA, on 11 September 2026

ORDER

This Crrminal Petition rs filed under Sectron 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor short, "BNSS"), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

fie petitioner is sole Accused in Crime No. 571 of 2026 of Ameenpur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, for the offences punrshable under Sections 68 64(2XaXm), 89, 74, 75, 77, 78, 1 15(2), 308, 351 (3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNS"), Sections 66E, 67 67/r of the lnformatton Technology Act, 2000-2008

l \ l-t(./ C.r/.1'. ),a. t 2978 al2A26

Heard Mr. -- Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, argued on behalf of Mr. C. t-lari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Palle Nageshwar Rao, k-'arned Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1- State and Mr. P Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant 4.1 The prosecution case, in brief, is that respondent No 2/de facto complainant approached Ameenpur Police Station in December, 2021 in connection with a family dispute, where she came into contact with the petitioner/Accused, who was then working as an lnspector of Police. lt is alleged that thereirfter, the petitioner repeatedly contacted and messaged her, expressed personal interest in her and, upon her refusal threatened and coerced her into visiting his residence at KPHB Colony, where he allegedly sexually assaulted her without her consent lt is further alleged that the petrtioner ':hereafter continued to sexually exploit and intimidate her. It is alleged that the de facto complainant became pregnant and that, on 03.01 .2024, the ar>cused forcibly arranged for termination of the pregnancy and subsequently took her for medical verification. She further alleges that the accused phys cally assaulted her, including by biting her and causing injuries, and publicly assaulted her near S R. Nagar Metro Statron 4 2. The further allegation is that the accused obtained objectionable photog ra phs/video s of the de facto complainant without her consent and threatened to circulate them among her relatives in her native place, thereby -) NIR,/ Cr/.P. |io. I 2978 oi 2026 blackmarlrng and intimidating her. lt is alleged that, under such threats and pressure, she was compelled to file a divorce petition against her husband, The accused is also alleged to have extorted substantial amounts from her through onlrne bank transfers while continutng to threaten and harass her and her family members. The de facto complainant further alleges that the accused broke into her house, assaulted her, tracked her location and call-data details, made threatening calls and misused his position and influence as a Police Officer to prevent her from taking legal action. lt is also alleged that he claimed to have political and administrative influence at high levels and challenged her to take action against him. He is further alleged to have sent associates to her natrve place to disclose her personal information and threaten her through thrrd partres. On the basis of the complaint and the supporting material, the crime came to be registered. 51 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petrtioner denies the allegations in their entirety. According to the petitioner, the de facto complainant was well acquainted with him and his family and had voluntarily interacted with them. lt is submitted that the petitioner had financially assrsted her to the extent of approximately Rs 14 Lakhs through bank accounts, UPl, debrUcredit cards and other electronic modes, and that the dispute arose when he declined her further financial demands, whereupon she allegedly threatened to implicate him rn false criminal cases and damage his reputation lt is further submitted that the allegations are { .\ t1( / Cr/.P. \0. / ?97E ol 2026 false, exaggerated and disputed and that the case rests substantially on documentary ano electronrc evidence, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary. The petitioner is stated to be a permanent resident and not a flight risk. lt is als;o submitted that he is under suspension and, therefore, cannot misuse hir; officral position. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions rmposed by the Court. He further submits that the allegations lack specific dates, times and pafticulars and disputes the territorial jurisdiction of Ameenpur Police Station 5.2. ln support of the above submissions, learned Senior Counsel places reliance on Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v Slaie of Punlab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, contending that the mere existence of the power to arrest does not, by itself, justify its exercise The necessity and justification for arrest, it is submitted, must be assesseri having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, balancing the personal liberty of the accused with the interests of a fair and effective investigation. Reliance is also placed on Ralnrsh Singh alias Soni v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 197; Shiv Pratap Singh Rana y Stale of Madhya Pradesh. (2024) I SCC 313.. and Pramod Kumar Navratna v. Slale of Chhattisgarh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 629, in support of the contention thart a consensual relattonship cannot be conve(ed into an allegation of rape merely because the relationship subsequently failed. lt is further contended that, while consrdering the prayer for antic patory bail, the

N71t,/ CrlP. No. / 2978 o[2026 Court may have regard to the surrounding circumstances, conduct of the parties, nature and duration of the relationship, and the material collected during investigation, in determining whether consent was obtained under misconceptron of fact or whether the relationship was consensual. subsequently turned sour The actual necessity for custodial interrogation is also urged as a relevant consideration. On these grounds, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 6.1 Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1- State submits that the de facto complainant has alleged that the petitioner, while workrng as an lnspector of Police, sexually assaulted and continuously exploited her, threatened and physically assaulted her, and caused termination of her pregnancy. He is further alleged to have obtained objectionable photographs/videos of her, blackmailed and intimidated her, and extracted money through online transactions lt is submitted that the detailed statements of the de facto complainant were recorded at the Bharosa Centre and that two other witnesses have also been examined. The investigation is stated to be at a crucial stage, with medical records, financial transactions, CDRs and electronic communications yet to be fully collected. Further submits that the petitioner's claim that the amounts transferred constituted financial assistance requires examination with regard to their source, purpose and nature. lt is further contended that custodial interrogation is necessary to confront the petitioner with the material

,\1 lt./ Ctt P. \o 12918 ol 2026 collected during rnvestigation and the allegations against hrm, and to ascertain the invr>lvement and identity of persons allegedly associated with the threats and intimidation of the de facto complainant 6.2. Learned PJblic Prosecutor further submits that, having regard to the petitioner's form(-.r position as a Police Officer, there is a reasonable apprehension thart he may influence or intimidate the de facto complainant and other witnesses and tamper with or manipulate the evidence. lt is also pointed out that r:he petrtioner has fiied an application seeking quashing of the FlR, which is pending before a Coordinate Bench of this Court. On these grounds, particularly the asserted requirement of custodial interrogation and the apprehension of interference with the investigation, dismissal of the petition is sought 7 1 Learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant, opposing the bail petition, submits that the de facto complainant approached Ameenpur Policer Statron in connection with a famrly dispute, where the petitioner, then functioning as the Station House Officer, allegedly misused his official position to subject her to sexual exploitation, physical assault, threats, stalking and blackmail lt is further alleged that he forced and arranged for termination of her pregnancy and threatened to defame her and circulate her intimate photographs and videos

\n(/ (.i.P. ,\0. l?9-E ol )0?6 7 2 It is further submitted that the petitioner allegedly extorted approximately Rs.80 lakhs, transferred to third-party accounts, apart from digital and cash payments The de facto complainant relies upon bank statements, GPay/PhonePe transactions, WhatsApp messages, photographs and medical records. She further alleges that the petitioner confiscated her debit cards, tracked her CDRs/location and used associates to threaten her and her family members. The defence that the relationship WAS voluntary and that the amounts constituted financial assistance is substantially denied. According to the de facto complainant, the interactions and payments occurred under coercion, threats and fear arising from the petitioner's position and authority as a Police Officer 7.3 lt rs contended that the investigation is at a crucial stage and that material evidence remains to be collected. The territorial jurisdiction raised by the petitioner is also disputed lt is submrtted that, considerrng the nature and delicacy of the allegations, the rnvestigation was entrusted to Narsingi Police Station and that such entrustment does not affect territorial jurisdiction Accordingly, learned counsel submits that, having regard to the gravity of the allegations, the alleged misuse of official authority, the disputed nature of the relationship and financial transactions, the asserted necessity of custodial interrogation, and the apprehended prejudice to the ,investigatron, the petition deserves to be dismissed

\t 1{./ Cr,'.P. \0. 129/8 ol 2026

7.4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhna Chaudhary v. Sfale of Raiasthan and another, (2022) 20 SCC 645, wherein, while setting asi,le the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Courl directed the accused to surrender observing that, having regard to the seriousness of the offences, pendrng recoveries and lack of full cooperation, it was not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail lt is further submitted that, while considering an application for anticrpatory bail' the Court is required to take into consideration, inter alia, the possibiltty of the accused influenctng or intimidating the complainant or witnesses, tampering with evidence, or obstructing a fair investigation Thus, prayed for drsmissal of the petition lhave carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record lt is well settled that the .;urisdiction under Section 482 BNSS is discretionary anrj must be exerctsed having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court. while considering anticipatory batl, is required to cc,nsider the nature and gravity of the accusation the role attributed to the accused, the possibility of influencing or intimidating the complainant or vritnesses, tampering with or interfering with evidence, the likelihood of fleeirrg from ,;ustice, and the necessity of custodial interrogation The consrderaticns are rllustrative and not exhaustive. The Court must () ,\'nt,/ ( ri /). .\r. I :t/-8 ,t :02/; balance the petitroner's personar riberty with the regirmate requrrements of a fair and effecttve investigation. The power under this provision, though intended to protect personar rrberty, cannot be exercised, so as to frustrate a legitimate investigation At the same time, the mere gravity of the accusation cannot, by rtserf, justify deniar of anticipatory bair without consideration of the crrcumstances of the case and the actual investigative requirements. 10 ln the present case, the allegations are grave and multifaceted, involving aileged sexuar assaurt and continued sexuar exproitation, forcibre termination of pregnancy, physical assault, cnminal intimidation, blackmail, extortion and misuse of the petrtioner's positron as a porice officer. This Court is not required, at this stage, to determine the truth of the allegations or conduct a mini{rial 11 whire the petitioner craims that the rnteractions were voruntary and that he extended financial assistance, the de facto complainant alleges coercron, threats and misuse of the petitioner's position and refers to Lakhs to third-party accounts The transactions of approximately Rs.g0 source, purpose, nature and destination of these transactions cannot appropnatery be adjudicated in the present proceedings. These rrvar versrons regardrng the nature of the rerationship and the financiar transactions require detailed investigation.

r0 \ /t{./ ( r'r i r. \,r. I l9-E ot 1026 12 The investigation is stated to be at a crucial stage Medical and hosPital records (;oncernlng including the Dt'lC dated digital-payment transactions' WhatsApp communications' photographs' videos, CDRs, location data and other electronic material are yet to be fully collected, verified 'and corretated The alleged involvement of third parties in threatening or intirridating the de facto complainant' as well as the tracing of the financial trail, erlso requires investigation. The fact that the evidence is substantially documentary or electronic the alleged pregnancy and lts termination, 16.02.2024, bank and financial records, does not, bY itself, rule out the necessity of custodial interrogation The is whether the prosecution has demonstrated a tnvestigative purpose for such interrogation' ln the relevant consideratton specific and legitimate present case, the need to confront the petitroner with the material collected' verify financial zrnd electronic evidence' identify relevant devices and communications, and ascertain the involvement of persons allegedly acting at his instance co lstitutes such investigative requirements

14. h P Chidttmbaram v Directorate of Enforcement' (2019) I SCC 24' the Hon'ble Supreme Court recogntsed that' in an appropriate case custodial interrogation may be necessary for effecttve investigation and collection of useful information or material The stage and requirements of investigation are, therefore, relevant considerations while examintng a prayer l1 \ I1{,/ (-rli ). \a. I :r:8 ,l :0?6 for anticipatory bail At the same time, rejection of anticipatory bail does not amount to an automatic direction to arrest. The question whether pre-arrest protection should be granted is distrnct from the question whether arrest, if consrdered necessary, satisfies the statutory requirements. As held in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) I SCC 273, the power to arrest does not mean that arrest must necessarily be made; the lnvestigating Officer must independently apply hrs mtnd to the necessity of arrest and comply with the statutory safeguards. Thus, dismissal of the present petition does not dispense with the requirements governing a laMul arrest,

15. The prosecutron has placed specific investigative requtrements before this Court, including confrontation of the petitioner with the medical, electronic and financial material; verification and recovery of relevant evidence. examrnation of digital devices and communications, tracrng of the financial transactions; and identification of persons allegedly acting at his instance. The allegations of continuing threats and intimidation assume srgnificance in view of the petitioner's former posrtion as a Police Officer and give substance, at this stage, to the apprehension of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The fact that the petitioner is a permanent resident, is under suspension and has undertaken to cooperate with the rnvestigation are circumstances in his favour. However, they do not, by .themselves, outweigh the specific rnvestigative requirements demonstrated \ ll(./ (.zll) ,\r. 129-8 ol 2a26 by the prosecution, particularly, when custodial interrogation has been shown to have a legitimate investigative purpose. '16 The objection regarding territoriar jurisdiction does not, at this stage, warrant grant o1' anticipatory bair. The FrR has been registered and the investigation is being conducted by the agency presenfly entrusted wrth the matter' The question of territoriar JUrisdiction, and its regar consequences, is left open for consideration in appropriate proceedlngs Likewise, the pendency of the petrtion seeking quashing of the FIR before a coordinate Bench does nc,t determine the present applicatron, which must be considered independenily on its own merits. 17 Having regard to the gravity of the ailegations, the roie attributed to the petitioner, the stage of investigation, the medicar, electronic and financial materal yet to be fully collected and verified, the need for confrontation, recovery and trac ng of the financiar trair, the necessity of identifying persons allegedly rnvolvecr in the intrmidation, and the apprehension of infruencing witnesses or tampering with evrdence, this court is of the considered view that the requirernent of custodiar interrogation has been sufficienfly demonstrated at this stage. The circumstances reried upon by the petitioner, though relevant, cro not outweigh the aforesaid investigative requirements. The petitioner has;, therefore, failed to make out a case for grant of the extraordinary protection under Section 482 BNSS

t3 1B Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR N7 R./ (.ti.P. :\, 12t-8 at :0:6 //TRUE COPY// SE TION OFFICER The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy

2. The Station House Officer, police Cyberabad Commissionerate Station Ammenpur police Station, Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] C to SRI C HARt pREETH Advocare topUCl Two CD Copies TPK/GNK To,

)

o

HIGH COURT DATED: 11109t12026

ORDER

CRLP.No.12978 of 2026 CRIMINAL PE:TITION lS DISMISSED (J L,l R{ HE SI4

* oEsr. 1SSEPzttr 3 v l1 x C.'ri:') \1 lqlqL (