CRLP/10552/2026 of Mula alias Mamidi Vishnu Vardhan Reddy Vs The State Of Telangana, on 15 July 2026

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner/accused seeking enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No.295 of 2026 of Kodad Town Police Station, Suryapet District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 69, 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

2. The brief facts of the case as stated are that, on 16.06.2026, the de-facto complainant lodged a report with the police stating that she married one Pulla Reddy in 2009 and her husband died in 2016 due to ill health and they have a daughter aged about 15 years. Intending to remarry, she visited Praja Vedika at Habsiguda in May 2026, where she came into contact with the petitioner. After knowing about her circumstances, he promised to marry her. On 10.05.2026, he took her to his house at Kodad, where she stayed for about ten days. During this period, he allegedly established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage. On 20.05.2026, while they were travelling in his car, the vehicle met with an accident. Thereafter, he sought money for repairs, and believing his assurance, she handed over her gold necklace weighing about 1½ tulas, which he pledged after promising to redeem and return it. Subsequently, when she insisted on marriage, he informed her that he had lost his job and was unable to support her. On 15.06.2026, when she visited his house, he allegedly abused her in filthy language, refused to return her gold necklace, threatened her and demanded Rs.30 lakhs, stating that he would marry her only if she paid the said amount. Hence, she requested the police to take necessary action. Based on the said complaint, a case was registered against the petitioner for the above mentioned offence.

3. Heard Sri S. Chandra Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations levelled against him and that, even today, he is willing and ready to marry the complainant. However, according to the learned counsel, it was the conditions imposed by the victim that prevented the petitioner from marrying her. He further submitted that the petitioner has to take care of his father and has been falsely implicated in the case and that the relationship between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant was consensual in nature and, therefore, the offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is not attracted. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.06.2026 and that a substantial part of the investigation has already been completed. Hence, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the allegations against the petitioner are heinous and grievous in nature. He further submitted that the statements of the victim clearly show that the petitioner, under the pretext of marriage, exploited her and subsequently refused to marry her and that the investigation is still in progress. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.06.2026. As per the remand case diary, prosecution witnesses LWs.1 to 12, including the investigating officer, have already been examined. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the stage of investigation, the nature of the relationship between the parties and the duration of incarceration, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner‑accused, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner-accused 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 Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kodad.

ii. The petitioner-accused 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-accused 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 petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 15.07.2026 SS

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10552 OF 2026 DATE: 15.07.2026

SS