CRLP/13783/2026 of Doggela Ramu Vs The State of Telangana on 1 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 anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.1 in Crime No. 143 of 2026 of Parkal Police Station, Warangal District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 115(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr. Midhun Kumar Allu, learned counsel, argued on behalf of Ms. Devara Samhitha, learned counsel for the petitioner and

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 13783 of 2026

Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/Accused No.1 allegedly induced the de facto complainant/victim to enter into a sexual relationship with him on the promise of marriage and subsequently refused to marry her on the ground that she was allegedly involved in an affair with another person. Based on the report lodged by the de facto complainant, a crime came to be registered against the petitioner and the other accused.

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that the de facto complainant and the petitioner are both majors, are relatives, and have been in love with each other for a considerable period. Learned counsel further submits that, even according to the averments contained in the complaint, the de facto complainant was introduced by the petitioner to his family members and that the petitioner had expressed his intention to marry her. However, at a later stage, upon allegedly coming to know of the de facto complainant's parallel relationship with another person, the proposed marriage did not materialise.

5.2. It is further contended that the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was consensual and that, after the relationship

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 13783 of 2026

turned sour on account of the alleged parallel affair of the de facto complainant, the present case was foisted against the petitioner and his family members. Learned counsel submits that the allegations contained in the complaint are false and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of investigation. It is also contended that the averments in the complaint do not disclose any dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner from the inception and, therefore, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against him are not made out. 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 the Court. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition and submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he induced the de facto complainant on the promise of marriage, sexually exploited her. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that the petitioner's physical presence may be necessary for the effective completion of the investigation. He further submitted that the other accused, namely, the parents of the petitioner, who are facing separate allegations, were served with notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, and that, during the course of the investigation, five witnesses have been examined. It is contended that, in the event of the petitioner being granted

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 13783 of 2026

anticipatory bail, there is a possibility that he may not cooperate with the investigation and that his custodial presence may be required for its effective progress. On these grounds, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.

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

8. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he established a physical relationship with the de facto complainant on the promise of marriage and subsequently declined to marry her. At the stage of considering anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the allegations or record conclusive findings on disputed questions of fact. However, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the likelihood of interference with the investigation, and the necessity of custodial interrogation are relevant considerations. The Court must balance the petitioner's right to personal liberty with the interests of a fair and effective investigation. (Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1).

9. It is also settled that mere failure to honour a promise of marriage does not, by itself, establish that the promise was false from its inception. The relevant consideration is whether the promise was false when made and

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 13783 of 2026

directly induced the complainant's consent to the sexual relationship. This is a fact-sensitive issue to be determined on the basis of the evidence and circumstances of each case. (Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of U.P., (2021) 3 SCC 118).

10. In the present case, the role attributed to the petitioner requires investigation and, if necessary, the disputed facts are to be tested at trial. At the same time, the timeline and nature of the relationship between the parties, their statuses as adults, and the fact that, even according to the complaint, the relationship came to an end in the context of an alleged parallel relationship of the de facto complainant, are relevant circumstances. Further, there is no specific material presently demonstrating the necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioner.

11. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner's willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and the absence of specific material warranting custodial interrogation, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail. Such protection, however, shall be subject to appropriate conditions securing his presence and cooperation in the investigation and protecting the interests of the prosecution.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 13783 of 2026

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions: (A) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Parkal Police Station, Warangal District, on or before 16.09.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest, the Station House Officer shall release the petitioner/Accused No.1 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.

(B) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Saturday between 10:00 AM to 03:00 PM, for a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of his release on bail or until filing of the final result, whichever is earlier. (C) The petitioner/Accused No.1 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 No.1 shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 13783 of 2026

(E) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall furnish his complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein.

(F) The petitioner/Accused No.1 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.

13. It is made clear that the 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: 01.09.2026 svl