CRLP/11073/2026 of Dharavath Ravi Vs The State of Telanagana on 22 July 2026

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed before this Court for grant of bail to the Petitioner who is arrayed as accused in FIR No.243 of 2026 of Pocharam IT Corridor Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerat, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the BNS.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 02.05.2026, the de- facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that, in the year 2021, she got married and blessed with two children. For the past four years, she has been residing along with her husband at Venkatadri Township. Her husband is working as a cab driver.

The complainant stated that about six months ago, the petitioner herein along with his family came to reside in a rented house adjacent to their house in the same colony. The petitioner is also working as a cab driver and due to friendship between her husband and the petitioner herein, both the families developed close acquaintance. Taking advantage of the said acquaintance and the absence of her husband during working hours, the petitioner frequently visited her house. Further, the complainant stated that, for the past three months, the petitioner had been behaving indecently with her and forcibly insisting her to maintain physical relationship with him. He allegedly threatened and intimidated her stating that, if she did not comply with his demands, he would make false allegations against her and inform her husband. The complainant stated that despite her refusal, the petitioner allegedly took advantage of her husband's absence and forcibly committed rape on her on several occasions against her will and also on 17.04.2026, against her will, the petitioner committed rape on her. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case for the above said offences.

3. Heard Sri M. Amarnath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no such offence committed by the petitioner and he is innocent of the said allegations and he is falsely implicated in the present case and as a counter-blast case, a case was registered against the husband of the de-facto complainant by the wife of the petitioner herein vide Crime No.237 of 2026 on 28.04.2026 and even after registration of the said case, the present case is registered on 02.05.2026 and there is no such reason mentioned in the complaint for the delay. He further submitted that the petitioner is in jail since 08.05.2026 and the material part of the investigation was already completed and further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to him by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations against the petitioner herein are serious and heinous in nature and the statement of the de- facto complainant under Section 183 of the BNS is not yet recorded, though the requisition is made on 19.06.2026. Further, the investigation is not yet completed, as such, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for the bail. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner herein is in jail since 08.05.2026 and as seen from the record, even after 17.04.2026, the petitioner herein has committed the offence repeatedly and there is no such complaint lodged before the police and also there is no such reason mentioned in the complaint for the delay in lodging the report after six months. As seen from the remand case diary, the prosecution witnesses, LWs 1 to 12 have already been examined. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, the period of incarceration of the petitioner, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall execute 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 learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-1st AJCJ, Malkajgiri-Medchal District, Uppal at Medipally. ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required. iii. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).

7. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 22.07.2026 TU

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11073 OF 2026 DATE 22.07.2026

TU