CRLP/11425/2026 of Adnan Vs The State of Telangana on 28 July 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.228 of 2026 on the file of Saidabad Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr.S.Ganesh, 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 came into contact with the petitioner by chance. The petitioner allegedly represented to her that he could facilitate the sanction of a housing loan through bank managers. On that pretext, they remained in regular telephonic contact and communication. It is alleged that, under the guise of arranging the housing loan, the petitioner took the de facto complainant to his house, where he secretly captured her photographs and videos without her consent. Thereafter, on one occasion, the petitioner professed his love for her and expressed his intention to marry her. However, the de facto complainant rejected his proposal. Subsequently, by threatening to make the secretly recorded videos viral on social media, the petitioner allegedly blackmailed the de facto complainant. It is further alleged that, owing to her helpless situation and under continuous threats, she was compelled to submit to the petitioner's repeated sexual exploitation. The petitioner is also alleged to have compelled her to satisfy the sexual desires of his friends who had returned from Dubai. When she refused and began avoiding his phone calls, the petitioner allegedly continued to threaten and blackmail her. Based on these allegations, the present crime was registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime with ulterior motives. He further contends that, even according to the prosecution case, the victim is a married woman with children, and that, at best, the relationship between the parties was consensual, being one between two consenting adults. It is further submitted that the victim herself has admitted that the relationship continued for a period of nearly two years and that they met on several occasions. However, no explanation has been offered as to why no complaint was lodged during the said period. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident and is willing to cooperate with the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer as and when required and by complying with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. It is, therefore, 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, by employing deceptive representations, including a promise to marry, he sexually exploited the de facto complainant. It is further submitted that the investigation is at a nascent stage and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to ascertain the circumstances surrounding the commission of the alleged offences. Additionally, it is contended that the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may adversely affect the ongoing investigation and, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed.

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

8. The gravamen of the allegations is that the petitioner, by representing that he could facilitate the sanction of a housing loan, gained the confidence of the de facto complainant and, thereafter, allegedly recorded her photographs and videos without her knowledge or consent. It is further alleged that the petitioner subsequently used those recordings to blackmail her by threatening to make them viral on social media, thereby coercing her into submitting to repeated sexual exploitation.

9. It is well settled that, while considering an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, the Court is required to strike a delicate balance between the individual's fundamental right to personal liberty and the societal interest in ensuring a fair, free, and effective investigation. The power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary in nature and is intended to protect an individual against unnecessary arrest and humiliation; however, its exercise must be guided by settled judicial principles and the facts of each case.

10. The factors that ordinarily govern the exercise of discretion include the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the antecedents of the accused, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, the necessity of custodial interrogation, and the larger interests of justice. These principles have been consistently reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, wherein it was held that no inflexible or straitjacket formula can be prescribed for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail and that each case must be decided on its own facts while balancing individual liberty with the interests of investigation. The said principles were reaffirmed in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that personal liberty is a cherished constitutional value and that arrest should not be resorted to as a matter of routine when the investigation can be effectively carried out without custodial interrogation.

11. Having regard to the chronology of the alleged incidents, it is not in dispute that both the petitioner and the de facto complainant are adults.

The allegations indicate that the parties remained in contact over a considerable period. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, which are matters to be examined during investigation and, if necessary, at trial, this Court finds that the material presently available does not prima facie indicate that the petitioner is likely to abscond, evade the investigation, or misuse the liberty that may be granted to him. The petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and by complying with such conditions as may be imposed by this Court.

12. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Saidabad Police Station, Hyderabad on or before 10.08.2026. 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 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) Additionally, 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.

14. 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: 28.07.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11425 OF 2026

DATE : 28.07.2026

CHS