Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 700 (TS)

Kooragayala Sai kumar v. State of Telangana

2025-05-21

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused in Crime No.56 of 2025 on the file of the Mupkal Police Station, Nizamabad District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 69, 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Heard Sri B.Jithender, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.05.2025, the de facto complainant came to the Police Station and lodged a Telugu written complaint against the petitioner/accused vide Crime No.56 of 2025 on the file of the Mupkal Police Station, Nizamabad District alleging that in the month of October, 2024, there was proposal for arranged marriage between the petitioner and de-facto complainant and that there was an agreement of giving dowry of Rs.25,00,000/- two thulas gold ornaments and other articles to the petitioner, in the presence of elders. Both were in contact with each other on phone. On 02.04.2025, when no one was present in the house, the petitioner came to the house of the de-facto complainant and promised the de-facto complainant with deceitful words that he would marry her and forcefully participated in sexual intercourse with her, though she did not agree and did not disclose the matter with anyone. On 26.04.2025, one foreign woman sent photos and videos of her and the petitioner to the de-facto complainant’s younger brother through Instagram which reveals closeness between each other and when asked about the same to the petitioner, he behaved rudely with her and denied to marry her. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the said crime and he did not commit any crime as alleged by the de-facto complainant. The petitioner has nothing to do with the said crime and all the allegations made by the de-facto complainant are void and that the petitioner never visited the house of the de-facto complainant on any occasion. In fact, the petitioner never refused to marry de-facto complainant, she herself created false story on believing the fake and misconception photos sent to her brother’s phone number from unknown sources. Further, the petitioner’s permanent abode is in Nirmal, Telangana, and he is apprehending arrest in the hands of Police. In fact, the petitioner never refused to marry de-facto complainant, she herself created false story on believing the fake and misconception photos sent to her brother’s phone number from unknown sources. Further, the petitioner’s permanent abode is in Nirmal, Telangana, and he is apprehending arrest in the hands of Police. Therefore, the petitioner shall abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, learned counsel prays this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner is in a relationship with a woman residing in Dubai, and has children with her. Suppressing the said fact, the petitioner agreed to marry de- facto complainant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it is revealed that there are serious allegations leveled against the petitioner/accused. Therefore, taking into consideration the gravity and nature of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.