CRLP/10984/2026 of PRASHANT ASHOK KARHALE 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 accused No.2 in FIR No.82 of 2026 of Charminar Police Station, Hyderabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 318(4), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr.Amol Shobha Shivaji.G, learned counsel representing Mr.Sameer Anurag Jeshtadi, 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 accused No. 1, on the false promise of marriage, physically exploited the de facto complainant and also induced her to part with certain amounts by making false representations. The allegation against the petitioner/accused No. 2 is that he is the brother of accused No. 1 and that, when the de facto complainant demanded repayment of the amounts allegedly paid to accused No. 1, the petitioner intervened and assured her that the amounts would be repaid. It is further alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque towards such repayment; however, the cheque was dishonoured upon presentation. 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 no involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. It is contended that accused No. 1, who is the petitioner's brother, and the de facto complainant had been in a consensual relationship since the year 2024. It is further submitted that this Court, upon considering the submissions made in the case of accused No. 1, was pleased to grant him anticipatory bail. Learned counsel submits that the allegations against the petitioner are confined to the alleged assurance of repayment of the amounts claimed by the de facto complainant and that no other overt act has been attributed to him. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. According to the learned counsel, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary. It is also submitted that the petitioner is pursuing his education in Germany, would cooperate with the investigation, and any coercive action will cause serious prejudice to his career. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for the grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage. However, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that this Court has already granted anticipatory bail to accused No. 1 and that the specific allegations of physical and financial exploitation of the de facto complainant are directed against accused No. 1. Nevertheless, it is submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required for the purpose of an effective investigation. Accordingly, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

8. 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.

9. In the instant case, the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he assured the de facto complainant that the amounts allegedly obtained by accused No. 1 through false representations would be repaid and, in furtherance thereof, issued a cheque towards such repayment, which was subsequently dishonoured upon presentation.

10. Having regard to the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, his expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation, 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, subject to the following conditions: (A). The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Charminar Police Station, Hyderabad District, on or before 04.08.2026. 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 remain available for interrogation as and when required during the course of investigation and shall extend full cooperation to the investigation. (C) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein. (D) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall he tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (E) Any willful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioners liable to appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional Court, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable laws.

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.10984 OF 2026

DATE : 22.07.2026

mmr