CRLP/11046/2026 of Gundu Veeranjaneyulu Vs The State of Telangana on 22 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 sole accused in FIR No.149 of 2026 of Munagala Police Station, Suryapet, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “SC/ST Act”).

3. Heard Mr.S.Viplav Simha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a report on 27.06.2026 alleging that, although she was married and had three children, she became acquainted with the petitioner/accused, who allegedly promised to take care of her and her children. It is alleged that, under the pretext of love and a promise of marriage, the petitioner induced her into a sexual relationship and exploited her, and thereafter refused to marry her. It is further alleged that the petitioner abused the de facto complainant by referring to her caste. Based on the said report, the present crime came to be registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that, even according to the averments contained in the complaint, both the petitioner and the de facto complainant were married and had children at the time the alleged relationship commenced. The relationship is stated to have continued for nearly five years, which, according to the learned counsel, prima facie indicates that it was voluntary and based on the free consent of both parties. It is therefore contended that the allegation that the petitioner induced the de facto complainant to enter into a sexual relationship on a false promise of marriage is wholly unfounded. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition, contending that there are specific allegations that the petitioner sexually exploited the de facto complainant on the false promise of marriage. It is further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for the purpose of an effective investigation and that the grant of anticipatory bail is likely to hamper the investigation, as there is an apprehension that the petitioner may not cooperate with the Investigating Agency. Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

8. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that, on the false promise of marriage, he induced the de facto complainant into a sexual relationship, sexually exploited her, thereafter refused to marry her, and abused her by referring to her caste.

9. 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 an important 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. Similarly, 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.

10. Having regard to the fact that the de facto complainant was admittedly married and had children at the time the alleged relationship commenced, the duration of the relationship as pleaded by the petitioner, and the contention that the allegations, prima facie, do not attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act, and in the absence of any compelling necessity for custodial interrogation, this Court is inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner by granting anticipatory bail, subject to appropriate conditions to secure his availability for investigation and to safeguard the interests of the prosecution.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions: (A). The petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Munagala Police Station, Suryapet District, on or before 05.08.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release the petitioner 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 Station House Officer on every Monday and Saturday between 10.00 a.m. to 03.00 p.m. for a period of ten

(10) weeks from the date of his release on bail or till filing of the final result, whichever is earlier. (C) The petitioner shall remain available for interrogation as and when required during the course of investigation and shall extend full cooperation to the investigation. (D) The petitioner shall furnish her complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein. (E) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall she tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

12. 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: 22.07.2026 mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11046 OF 2026

DATE : 22.07.2026

mmr