CRLP/11515/2026 of R.Madan 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 pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is sole accused in Crime No. 368 of 2026 of Madhura Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr. C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 11515 of 2026

4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the de facto complainant became acquainted with the petitioner through mutual friends, and they were in a relationship for about ten months. It is alleged that the petitioner visited Hyderabad in the month of August 2025 and stayed in the room of the de facto complainant for three days, i.e., from 23.08.2025 to 25.08.2025, during which he had physical relations with her on the promise of marrying her. However, after returning to Bengaluru, the petitioner allegedly began ignoring the de facto complainant and is presently in a relationship with another woman. When the de facto complainant questioned him regarding the marriage, the petitioner is stated to have refused on the ground that she belonged to a slum area and was a Christian. It is further alleged that, during the course of their relationship, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the de facto complainant. Based on her complaint, the present crime came to be registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are baseless and that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He contends that, even according to the prosecution case, the alleged physical relationship took place only for three days in the year 2025, and that the present complaint has been lodged only after the relationship turned sour, allegedly because the petitioner is now in a relationship with another woman. He further submits that, even according to the police report, there is no specific allegation that the petitioner, with a

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 11515 of 2026

deceptive intention from the very inception, induced the de facto complainant to enter into a physical relationship on a false promise of marriage. It is argued that a mere failure to fulfil a promise to marry, by itself, would not attract the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a final-year B.Tech student at NIT Surathkal, Karnataka, and that he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, submitting that the investigation is still at a nascent stage and that the allegations against the petitioner are specific in nature. It is further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for the purpose of conducting an effective investigation. It is also contended that the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may adversely affect the investigation by resulting in the petitioner's non-cooperation. Accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

8. It is a well-settled principle of law that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the BNSS, the Court is required to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by balancing the individual's

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 11515 of 2026

right to personal liberty with the societal interest in ensuring a fair and effective investigation. The discretion to grant anticipatory bail is to be exercised judiciously, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, authoritatively held that no inflexible or straitjacket formula can be prescribed for the exercise of power under Section 438 Cr.P.C., and that each application must be decided on its own merits. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) the Court identified, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the exact role attributed to the accused, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, the likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and the necessity for custodial interrogation as relevant considerations.

10. In the case on hand, although the existence of a physical relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant is not in serious dispute and the circumstances under which such relationship was established are matters requiring investigation, the alleged occurrence pertains to the year 2025. The record does not disclose any material suggesting that the petitioner has attempted to evade the process of law or that he is likely to abscond. On the contrary, the petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigating agency and to abide by any conditions that

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 11515 of 2026

may be imposed by this Court. Further, at this stage, the prosecution has not placed any material demonstrating that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for the purpose of an effective investigation or that his release on anticipatory bail would prejudice the investigation by enabling him to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

11. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the allegations, the timeline of the alleged occurrence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a fit case for the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the BNSS. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to extend the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to such conditions to secure his presence during the course of investigation and to safeguard the interests of the prosecution.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions: (A) The petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Madhura Nagar Police Station, on or before 12.08.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest, the Station House Officer shall release the petitioner/Accused on bail on execution of personal bonds 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.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 11515 of 2026

(B) The petitioner/Accused 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. (C) The petitioner/Accused shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (D) The petitioner/Accused shall furnish his complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein. (E) 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. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 28.07.2026 svl