CRLP/7411/2026 of Koppuju Yashwanth, Vs The State of Telangana, on 3 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 the accused No.1 in FIR No.894 of 2024 on the file of Borabanda Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 420, 109 of Indian Penal Code.

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

4.1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.11.2024, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint alleging that she was earlier married on 07.05.2017. During the subsistence of the said marriage, she was introduced to the petitioner through her husband, and thereafter, she developed a close acquaintance with the petitioner, which subsequently resulted in physical intimacy between them, allegedly on the promise of marriag, when her husband left for Europe in connection with his employment. Accused No.2, having come to know about the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, threatened to disclose the same to her husband. Consequently, the de facto complainant herself informed her husband about the relationship, which ultimately resulted in dissolution of their marriage by way of divorce.

4.2. It is further alleged that after the divorce, the de facto complainant requested the petitioner to marry her; however, the petitioner declined to perform the marriage. According to the complainant, the petitioner had established physical relations with her on the assurance and promise of marriage and thereafter refused to honour the said promise. Allegations are also made against accused No.2 regarding intimidation, blackmailing and threats. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations contained in the complaint are accepted on their face value, the alleged relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant commenced in the year 2023 and the material on record clearly indicates that the relationship was consensual between two major individuals. It is further contended that, admittedly, at the relevant point of time when the alleged intimacy commenced, the de facto complainant was a married woman and was fully aware of the nature and consequences of the relationship.

5.2. It is respectfully submitted that the allegation that the petitioner obtained consent of the de facto complainant for physical relations on the alleged false promise of marriage is wholly untenable and does not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence alleged. Admittedly, the de facto complainant was already in a subsisting marital relationship at the relevant point of time, and therefore, the allegation of inducing consent on a promise of marriage is inherently improbable.

5.3. It is submitted that a mere failure of a relationship or subsequent inability/refusal to marry cannot, by itself, give rise to criminal liability in the absence of material showing that the petitioner had a fraudulent intention from the very inception. There is no allegation or material to prima facie establish that the petitioner made any promise of marriage with a dishonest intention not to honour the same at the time such promise was allegedly made.

5.4. The petitioner pleaded that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, has categorically held that there is a clear distinction between a false promise made without any intention of performance and a mere breach of promise due to subsequent circumstances. It was further held that, to constitute misconception of fact, it must be shown that the promise was false from its inception and that the accused never intended to fulfil the same. Further, in Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 18 SCC 517, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that a consensual relationship between two adults cannot be given a criminal colour merely because the relationship did not culminate into marriage.

5.5. It is further submitted that the complaint has been lodged after considerable delay and appears to be an afterthought arising out of personal disputes rather than any criminal act attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner has no intention to evade the process of law, is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and settled principles of law, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is contended that the petitioner, by giving an assurance of marriage, induced the de facto complainant to enter into a physical relationship and subsequently refused to marry her, thereby demonstrating dishonest intention. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and the statement of the de facto complainant and other relevant witnesses is required to be examined. According to the prosecution, if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail at this stage, there is a possibility of interference with the investigation and influencing of witnesses. On the said grounds, learned Additional Public Prosecutor seeks dismissal of the application.

7. I have perused the material available on record.

8. A careful examination of the material placed before this Court indicates that the petitioner was introduced to the de facto complainant in the year 2022 and the alleged act of physical intimacy is stated to have occurred in the year 2023. The material further reveals that, at the relevant point of time, the de facto complainant was admittedly married and subsequently the divorce between her and her husband took place on 07.07.2023. It is also alleged that the de facto complainant approached the family members of the petitioner on 11.09.2024 in connection with the proposal of marriage.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is intended to safeguard personal liberty and has to be exercised upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case. Further, in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench reiterated that anticipatory bail is an important protection flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that unnecessary arrest should not be resorted to when the accused is willing to cooperate with the investigation.

9. Having regard to the nature of accusations, the admitted timeline of events, the fact that the parties were acquainted for a substantial period, the issue as to whether there existed dishonest intention at the inception being a matter requiring investigation, and considering the petitioner’s undertaking to cooperate with the investigating agency, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted at this stage. At the same time, the interest of investigation can be adequately protected by imposing appropriate conditions to ensure the petitioner’s availability before the Investigating Officer.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Borabanda Police Station, Hyderabad on or before 17.07.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release him on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer. (B) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Tuesday and Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of his release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects.

(C) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation. (D) The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (E) The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (F) 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.

11. 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: 03.07.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7411 OF 2026

DATE : 03.07.2026

CHS