Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 679 (TS)

Muthoju Kiran v. State of Telangana

2025-05-21

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in connection with Crime No.86 of 2025 on the file of Narsampet, Police Station, Warangal District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (2), 318 (4), 69, 77, 78 and 351 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Mr.V.Jithender Rao, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the material available on record. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant got married to one Madraju and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with one male child and four years after the marriage, they got separated due to family issues. After separation, she has been leading her life with her son by doing household chores. While things stood thus, she got acquaintance with the accused, who promised her that he will marry her and look after her welfare and her son and by saying so, he forced her for physical intimacy. It is further alleged that during their relationship, he used to take her money for his personal use agreeing to return the same and that when the de facto complainant asked him to return her money, he did not respond. While so, on 23.11.2020 the petitioner executed an undertaking on Rs.100/- stamp paper stating that he will give 100 square yards plot to her and later, when she asked for return of her money, he threatened her with dire consequences and also blackmailed her stating that he will put her private photos in social media. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the complainant had been in a physical relationship for about 14 years. He contends that the petitioner never promised the de facto complainant to marry her and it is a well-settled principle of law that a long-standing physical relationship, in the absence of deceit or inducement, does not constitute an offence. In support of his contentions he also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another , 2024 INSC 897 . The petitioner is also ready to furnish the required sureties and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. In support of his contentions he also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another , 2024 INSC 897 . The petitioner is also ready to furnish the required sureties and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner herein. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed grant of bail, and stating that, prima facie, the allegations leveled against the petitioner is that he deceitfully induced the complainant into a physical relationship by making a false promise of marriage and he also involved in other offences. He further contended that the petitioner is also liable for offences of cheating, deceitful inducement, stalking, and criminal intimidation. It is alleged that the petitioner took an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the de facto complainant and when she asked him to return the same, the petitioner threatened her stating that he will post her private photos in social media. He further contended that the investigation is still in progress and allegations leveled against the petitioner are very serious in nature, which have impact on the society at large and that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. In view of the submissions made by both the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, though the contention of the petitioner is that Section 69 of BNS may not be applicable in the present case, considering the fact that the petitioner is involved in other offences, which are grave in nature, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.