CRLP/9437/2026 of Malavath Surender Vs The State of Telangana on 15 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 sole Accused in FIR No. 133 of 2026 of Market Police Station, Malkajgiri, facing accusations for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9437 of 2026

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant came into contact with the petitioner in the month of August, 2025, through a mobile phone conversation, during which the petitioner allegedly introduced himself as a person serving in the Indian Army and expressed his willingness to marry her. Believing the assurance given by the petitioner, the de facto complainant continued her relationship with him. It is alleged that, on 01.01.2026, the petitioner called the complainant to Secunderabad Railway Station and thereafter took her to OYO Relax Lodge, Secunderabad, where he allegedly established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage. It is further alleged that both of them stayed at the said lodge until 04.01.2026. It is further alleged that the petitioner again met the complainant on 25.04.2026 at Secunderabad and stayed with her at the same lodge until 27.04.2026, assuring her that he would convince his parents and marry her. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the petitioner was making arrangements for another marriage/engagement. When she, along with her family members, approached the petitioner and his family members at Nirmal, the petitioner allegedly refused to marry her. Based on these allegations, the complainant lodged a report, pursuant to which the subject crime came to be registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, during the course of investigation, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer pursuant to the summons issued to him and fully cooperated with the investigation, while denying the allegations levelled against him. It is further

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9437 of 2026

contended that the case has been falsely foisted upon the petitioner with an intent to harass him. Learned counsel further submits that the Investigating Officer addressed a letter to the petitioner's Commanding Officer seeking the petitioner's custody, which has given rise to a reasonable apprehension of his arrest. It is contended that, since the petitioner is a serving personnel in the Indian Army, any such arrest would have serious adverse consequences on his service and career prospects. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident having a fixed place of abode and that there is no likelihood of his absconding. It is also contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and that he is willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, seeks grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, contending that there are specific allegations against him. It is submitted that the petitioner induced the de facto complainant to enter into a relationship by promising to marry her and, on the strength of such promise, established physical relations with her. Further pleaded for considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the fact that the investigation is still in progress, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail and, accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9437 of 2026

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the material placed on record.

8. The material placed on record, at this stage, prima facie indicates that the petitioner and the de facto complainant had been acquainted with each other since August, 2025 and remained in regular contact thereafter. The allegations further disclose that they met on more than one occasion, stayed together on two separate occasions, and continued their relationship for a considerable period. The prosecution case, therefore, reveals a continuing relationship between two adults extending over several months.

9. The question as to whether a promise of marriage, allegedly inducing consent for a sexual relationship, constitutes a "misconception of fact" has been authoritatively considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. The settled legal position is that every breach of a promise to marry does not ipso facto amount to rape. To establish that the consent of the prosecutrix was vitiated by misconception of fact, it must prima facie be shown that the promise to marry was false from its very inception and that the accused never intended to honour such promise when it was made. If, on the other hand, the promise was made in good faith but could not subsequently be fulfilled due to supervening circumstances or a change in the relationship between the parties, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence would ordinarily not be attracted. Thus, the distinction consistently recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is between a genuine

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9437 of 2026

promise which subsequently remains unfulfilled and a false promise made in bad faith with the sole intention of obtaining consent. Merely because a voluntary relationship between two consenting adults does not culminate in marriage, criminal liability does not automatically follow unless the materials disclose that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention from the very inception of the relationship. Whether such intention existed at the time when the alleged promise of marriage was made is essentially a matter of evidence to be established during investigation and, if necessary, at trial.

10. In the instant case, the allegations and the surrounding circumstances require a thorough investigation to ascertain whether the alleged promise of marriage was false from its inception or whether the relationship subsequently failed owing to intervening circumstances or differences that arose between the parties. At the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, this Court is neither expected nor required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or record any conclusive findings on disputed questions of fact, as any such exercise may prejudice either side during the course of investigation or trial.

11. The principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail are well settled. While exercising this jurisdiction, the Court is required to strike a balance between the individual's fundamental right to personal liberty and the societal interest in ensuring a fair and effective investigation. The Court is required to consider, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9437 of 2026

antecedents of the accused, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, the likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and whether custodial interrogation is genuinely necessary. These principles stand authoritatively laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, and have been reaffirmed in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1.

12. In the case on hand, it is not disputed that the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer pursuant to the summons issued to him and has cooperated with the investigation. The petitioner is stated to be a serving member of the Indian Army, has a permanent place of residence, and there is presently no material placed before this Court to indicate that he is likely to abscond, evade the investigation, tamper with the prosecution evidence, or influence the witnesses. Significantly, the prosecution has not placed any material demonstrating that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for the purpose of effective investigation.

13. It is a settled principle that arrest is not intended to be punitive but is primarily meant to secure the presence of the accused during investigation and trial, prevent interference with the investigation, or avert the commission of further offences. Where the accused is available for investigation, has cooperated with the Investigating Agency, and custodial interrogation is not shown to be imperative, the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty deserves due weight. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Arnesh Kumar v. State

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9437 of 2026

of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, emphasised that arrest should not be made in a routine manner and that deprivation of liberty must be justified by the necessities of investigation.

14. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, the principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, and the absence of any material indicating that the petitioner is likely to evade the investigation or misuse the liberty that may be granted, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. However, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure his continued cooperation with the investigation and to safeguard the interests of the prosecution.

15. 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, Market Police Station, Malkajgiri, on or before 29.07.2026. 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. 9437 of 2026

(B) The petitioner/Accused shall not leave India without obtaining prior permission from the jurisdictional Court concerned. (C) 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. (D) The petitioner/Accused shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (E) 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. (F) The petitioner/Accused 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. (H) 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.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9437 of 2026

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. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J

Date: 15.07.2026 svl