Addagunta Ashok vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

Heard Mr.K.Vamshi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Karthik Madhanu, learned counsel for de facto complainant-respondent No.3 and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.1082 of 2026 on the file of the Uppal Police Station, Malkajgiri, facing accusations under Sections 318(4), 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS') and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'SC/ST (POA) Act').

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a report stating that the petitioner had developed an acquaintance with her in October 2021, which subsequently developed into a love relationship. It is alleged that they spent considerable time together and travelled to Tirupati, Arunachalam, and Pondicherry, and also stayed together at Dandeli, Gokarna, and in an OYO room at Uppal. During the course of their relationship, the petitioner is alleged to have made several attempts to establish physical intimacy with her and touched her. It is further alleged that, upon the family members of the petitioner becoming aware of their relationship, they did not accept the de facto complainant on the ground that she belonged to a different caste and arranged the petitioner's engagement with another woman. As the petitioner declined to marry the de facto complainant, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, as he declined to marry the de facto complainant, and that the complaint was lodged only with an intention to extract money from him. He further submits that the allegations are omnibus in nature and that no specific overt acts constituting the essential ingredients of the alleged offences have been attributed to the petitioner. According to learned counsel, a reading of the complaint does not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner and the de facto complainant admittedly had been acquainted with each other for a considerable period and had voluntarily travelled together to various places and maintained a relationship, without there being any allegation of a similar nature during that period. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation; however, in view of the invocation of the provisions of the SC/ST Act, he apprehends arrest and other coercive action at the hands of the police.

It is further submitted that the parties had arrived at a settlement and had executed an MOU, pursuant to which attempts were made to resolve the dispute. However, the de facto complainant subsequently retracted from the settlement and made further allegations which, according to the petitioner, are not borne out by the material on record. Learned counsel further submits that all the other alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years and that the petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail or, in the alternative, for a direction to the Investigating Agency to act in accordance with law by issuing a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, thereby protecting the petitioner from unwarranted coercive action.

Learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant submits that specific allegations have been made against the petitioner and that the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act have also been invoked against him by the prosecution. He further submits that the present petition has been filed without impleading the de facto complainant as a party, despite the fact that the provisions of the SC/ST Act have been invoked against the petitioner.

It is further submitted that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and that the allegations disclose offences falling within the scope of the SC/ST (POA) Act. He also submits that, subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the petitioner coercively compelled the de facto complainant to enter into an MOU. The said report has been placed before the Investigating Agency and, pursuant to the same, certain consequential proceedings are being initiated before the learned Magistrate concerned.

Thus, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, learned counsel for the de facto complainant prays for dismissal of the petition, contending that grant of anticipatory bail may prejudice the case of the de facto complainant and impede the ongoing investigation.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that, having regard to the allegations contained in the complaint, the crime was registered and was subsequently transferred to Uppal Police Station, where the investigation is presently underway. He further submits that the presence of the petitioner may be required for the purpose of conducting an effective investigation and that grant of anticipatory bail may result in the petitioner failing to cooperate with the investigation. He therefore prays for dismissal of the petition.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

The specific allegation against the petitioner is that the de facto complainant had been acquainted with him since 2021 and that the acquaintance subsequently developed into a relationship. It is further alleged that the petitioner made attempts to establish physical intimacy with her. However, when their relationship came to the knowledge of the family members of the petitioner, they are alleged to have refused to accept the de facto complainant on the ground that she belonged to a different caste and arranged the petitioner's engagement with another woman.

It is now well settled that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to take into consideration, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the offence, the specific role attributed to the accused, the likelihood of his absconding, the possibility of tampering with the evidence or influencing witnesses, and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

It is also pertinent to note that Section 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act operates in relation to the grant of anticipatory bail and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1036, clarified that an application for anticipatory bail may be considered where the materials on record do not disclose a prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act.

Having regard to the settled legal position, the allegation in the present case is that the parents of the petitioner refused to accept the de facto complainant on the ground that she belonged to a different caste. In the absence of any other circumstance, and having regard to the material presently available on record, coupled with the petitioner's willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and considering that the other offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to extend to the petitioner the statutory safeguards contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. Accordingly, the Investigating Agency shall act in accordance with law and, if the circumstances so warrant, issue notice to the petitioner under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. All other issues are left open to be considered and examined by the Investigating Agency in accordance with law during the course of investigation.

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Uppal Police Station, Malkajgiri, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such appearance, the Investigating Officer shall issue a notice to the petitioner under Section 35(3) of the BNSS in Crime No.1082 of 2026 and shall thereafter proceed strictly in accordance with law, duly adhering to the principles and guidelines enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. The petitioner shall, in turn, extend full cooperation to the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.

With this direction, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.