CRLP/14352/2026 of Sri Chitturi Rajashekar, Vs The State of Telangana, on 10 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.1503 of 2026 on the file of Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 74, 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

3. Heard Mr.G.Srikanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent -State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner came into contact with the de facto complainant in November 2025 and developed a relationship with her by allegedly making a false promise of marriage. It is alleged that, on the basis of such promise, the petitioner had sexual relations with the de facto complainant, as a result she became pregnant. It is further alleged that, acting upon the petitioner’s assurance, she underwent termination of the pregnancy. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, the petitioner started avoiding the de facto complainant and threatened her. On 23.08.2026, he allegedly informed her that he had married another woman, while nevertheless continuing to assure her that he would marry her. It is also alleged that the petitioner had recorded intimate videos of the de facto complainant without her consent. Based on the report lodged by the de facto complainant, the present crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that, even according to the averments contained in the complaint, the allegation that the petitioner had sexual relations with the de facto complainant on the misconception arising out of a promise of marriage is specifically denied by the petitioner. He further submits that the respective ages and occupations of the petitioner and the de facto complainant, coupled with the timeline of their relationship, indicate that the relationship was consensual in nature. Learned counsel further submits that, even according to the allegations, the petitioner had allegedly started avoiding the de facto complainant as early as December 2025 and that, if the allegations were true, she ought to have approached the authorities at that stage. However, the complaint was lodged only at a considerably belated stage, which, according to learned counsel, casts doubt on the allegations made against the petitioner.

5.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, except for the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 69 of the BNS, all the other offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. He further submits that the WhatsApp communications exchanged between the petitioner and the de facto complainant demonstrate that their relationship continued on cordial terms. It is also submitted that, even after the alleged marriage of the petitioner, the de facto complainant was aware of his marital status and, nevertheless, for reasons best known to her, proceeded to lodge the present complaint against him.

5.3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, his custodial interrogation is not necessary for the purpose of the investigation. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition and submits that, as borne out by the averments in the complaint, the petitioner, by making a promise of marriage, sexually exploited the de facto complainant and, on the basis of his assurance, even caused her to undergo termination of the pregnancy. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the investigation is still in progress and that the presence of the petitioner may be required for custodial interrogation in order to facilitate an effective and comprehensive investigation into the allegations. Accordingly, learned Additional 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 is that, by promising to marry the de facto complainant without any intention of fulfilling the promise, he induced her to have sexual relations with him, thereby attracting Section 69 of the BNS. The provision contemplates, inter alia, a promise to marry made without intention of fulfilling it. Thus, whether the petitioner had a deceptive intention at the inception of the relationship and whether the alleged promise had a direct nexus with the de facto complainant’s decision to engage in sexual relations are matters requiring examination of the surrounding circumstances and the material collected during investigation. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, the Supreme Court held that a false promise to marry requires a showing that the promise was made in bad faith, without intention to fulfil it from the inception, and that such promise had a direct and proximate bearing on the woman’s decision to engage in sexual relations. A mere subsequent failure to fulfil a promise, by itself, would not establish that the promise was false from its inception. At the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, this Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or undertake a mini-trial on disputed questions of fact.

9. In the present case, the questions as to the petitioner’s intention at the inception of the relationship, the nature of the alleged promise, and its effect upon the de facto complainant’s decision to engage in sexual relations are disputed matters which cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. The same are matters for investigation and, if necessary, trial. Having regard to the fact that both the petitioner and the de facto complainant are adults, the nature and duration of their relationship, the timeline emerging from the material placed before this Court, the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and the circumstances emerging during investigation, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not indispensable for an effective investigation.

10. In this position, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or the defence, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad on or before 24.09.2026. 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.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 10.09.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14352 OF 2026

DATE: 10.09.2026

CHS