CRLP/12218/2026 of Neeli Sambashiva Rao, Vs The State of Telangana, on 6 August 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 the sole accused in FIR No.346 of 2026 on the file of Jagtial Town Police Station, Jagtial District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Ms.C.Vasundhra Reddy, 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 de facto complainant lodged a report stating that she is a divorced woman. During the year 2020, she became acquainted with the petitioner through her brother-in-law. The petitioner was also a divorced person. Thereafter, a relationship developed between them, and on the promise of marriage, the petitioner is alleged to have sexually and financially exploited the de facto complainant during the period from 2021 to 2024. Subsequently, when the de facto complainant insisted that the petitioner to marry her and repay the amounts allegedly received from her, the petitioner refused to marry her and also declined to repay. Based on the said report, the present crime came to be registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It was contended that, even according to the averments in the report, the petitioner and the de facto complainant, both being consenting adults, were in a relationship from 2021 to 2024. The prolonged nature of the relationship, coupled with the de facto complainant's silence even after 2024, indicates that the allegations have been made with an ulterior motive. At best, the dispute pertains to a consensual relationship and certain monetary transactions between the parties. Nevertheless, it was submitted that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it was prayed that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application, contending that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that, on the pretext of marriage, he physically and financially exploited the de facto complainant and subsequently refused to marry her as well as to repay the amounts allegedly due to her. It was further submitted that the investigation is still in progress, six witnesses have been examined so far, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for an effective investigation. Accordingly, it was prayed that the application be dismissed.

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

8. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that, under the guise of love and on the promise of marriage, he is alleged to have subjected the de facto complainant to physical and financial exploitation. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several defences disputing the allegations, at this stage, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence, as such an exercise would amount to a premature appreciation of the evidence, which is impermissible in law.

9. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS, the Court is required to strike a delicate balance between safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and a fair and effective and unhindered investigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, held that while considering an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court must evaluate, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the precise role attributed to the accused, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, the necessity for custodial interrogation, and the larger interests of society and the State. Similarly, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against unnecessary arrests and held that arrest should not be made in a routine or mechanical manner merely because the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.

10. In the case on hand, though the allegations levelled against the petitioner are specific in nature, certain surrounding circumstances assume significance while considering the present application. Both the petitioner and the de facto complainant are adults, and the relationship between them is alleged to have continued over a considerable period. The alleged incidents span from the year 2021 to 2024, and the petitioner has categorically expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Significantly, no material has been placed before this Court to indicate that the petitioner is likely to abscond, evade the process of law, influence the prosecution witnesses, tamper with the evidence, or otherwise obstruct the course of investigation.

11. Having regard to the totality of circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the settled principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a fit case for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. Such relief, however, shall be subject to appropriate and reasonable conditions to secure the petitioner's availability during the course of investigation.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Jagtial Town Police Station, Jagtial District on or before 21.08.2026. 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 Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of ten (10) 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 they 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.

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.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 06.08.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12218 OF 2026

DATE : 06.08.2026

CHS