CRLP/10994/2026 of Shaik Dastagir Vs The State of Telangana on 23 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 petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in FIR No.293 of 2026 of Bodhan Town, Nizamabad Distict, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 89, 351(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and Mr.G.Dinesh Patil, learned counsel appearing for the implead petitioner.

4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that petitioner No.1, who is a neighbour of the de facto complainant, had initially promised to marry her. However, the parents of the de facto complainant solemnized her marriage with another person. It is alleged that, even thereafter, petitioner No.1 continued to visit her by misrepresenting himself before her in-laws. Owing to such conduct, her marriage allegedly ended in divorce. Subsequently, her parents solemnized her second marriage with another person.

4.2. According to the prosecution, despite the subsistence of her second marriage, petitioner No.1 again promised to marry the de facto complainant, developed an intimate relationship with her, kept her separately at Bodhan, and had sexual intercourse with her, as a result of which she became pregnant. It is further alleged that petitioner No.1, with the assistance of petitioner No.2, took the de facto complainant to a hospital, where her pregnancy was terminated and her right fallopian tube was removed. Thereafter, acting on the advice of petitioner No.1, the de facto complainant obtained a divorce from her second husband. However, petitioner No.1 subsequently refused to marry her. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, the present crime came to be registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated. It is contended that, even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted in their entirety, the de facto complainant was admittedly married to her second husband during the period when the alleged sexual relationship, purportedly induced by a promise of marriage, is stated to have taken place, thereby rendering the allegation inherently improbable. It is further submitted that merely accompanying the de facto complainant to a hospital would not, by itself, constitute any offence. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, are permanent residents, and undertake to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be granted.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant opposed the petition, contending that the allegations against the petitioners are specific and grave. It is submitted that petitioner No.1, on the false promise of marriage, sexually exploited the de facto complainant and, with the active assistance of petitioner No.2, caused the termination of her pregnancy against her consent and will, besides getting her right fallopian tube removed. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 subsequently attempted to eliminate the de facto complainant by engaging another person on 20.07.2026, in respect of which she lodged a separate police complaint, though no action has yet been taken thereon. It is, therefore, contended that, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, there would be a serious threat to the life and safety of the de facto complainant. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, submitting that the allegations contained in the complaint prima facie disclose the involvement of the petitioners and that the investigation is still in progress. It is further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be necessary for the purpose of an effective investigation and that, if anticipatory bail is granted, there is every likelihood of the petitioners not cooperating with the investigating agency. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.

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

9. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that petitioner No.1, on the false promise of marriage, sexually exploited the de facto complainant/respondent No.2 and, thereafter, caused the termination of her pregnancy and the removal of her right fallopian tube with the assistance of petitioner No.2.

10. The principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail are well settled. The jurisdiction under Section 438 of the BNSS is intended to safeguard the personal liberty of an individual against arbitrary or unnecessary arrest while, at the same time, ensuring that a fair and effective investigation is not impeded. While considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to balance the competing interests of the individual and the investigating agency by examining, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the antecedents of the accused, the likelihood of the accused absconding or evading the process of law, the possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and whether custodial interrogation is genuinely indispensable for the purpose of an effective investigation.

11. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is a vital safeguard of personal liberty and that arrest should not be resorted to merely because it is lawful to do so. The Court emphasized that the necessity for custodial interrogation must be assessed on the facts and circumstances of each case and that deprivation of personal liberty must be justified by compelling reasons. Likewise, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that arrest is not to be made as a matter of course and that the investigating agency must demonstrate that such arrest is necessary for one or more of the purposes contemplated under law.

12. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that, at the time when the alleged promise of marriage is stated to have been made and the alleged sexual relationship is said to have taken place, the de facto complainant was already married to her second husband. Prima facie, therefore, the allegation that petitioner No.1 induced a married woman to enter into a sexual relationship on the promise of marriage appears to be unlikely. That apart, the material placed on record by the de facto complainant indicates that the medical treatment was administered by the consulting doctor and not by petitioner No.2. The relevant medical records also reflect the signature of the mother of the de facto complainant on the concerned consent form.

13. Be that as it may, if there existed any conspiracy or concerted action between accused Nos.1 and 2, the same is a matter to be unearthed during the course of investigation and, if sufficient material is collected, to be tested during trial. Further, the allegation regarding the alleged attempt on the life of the de facto complainant pertains to a separate and distinct transaction. Though it is stated that the de facto complainant has lodged a separate complaint in that regard, no crime has, as yet, been registered.

14. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances coupled with the petitioners' expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation, the absence of any material suggesting a likelihood of their absconding, and there being no compelling necessity for their custodial interrogation, this Court is inclined to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure their availability for the purpose of investigation and to safeguard the interests of the prosecution.

15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioners shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions: (A). The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Bodhan Town Police Station, Nizamabad District, on or before 06.08.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release the petitioners on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said Officer. (B) The petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. to 03.00 p.m. for a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of their release on bail or till filing of the final result, whichever is earlier, and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects. (C) The petitioners shall remain available for interrogation as and when required during the course of investigation and shall extend full cooperation to the investigation. (D) The petitioners shall furnish their complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein. (E) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall they tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

16. 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: 23.07.2026 mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10994 OF 2026

DATE : 23.07.2026

mmr