Bhanu Prakash & Ors. vs The State Of Telangana

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

The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 6 in FIR No.211 of 2026 on the file of the Utnoor Police Station, Adilabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 89, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr.M.Venkanna, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a police report dated 15.06.2026, alleging that she was married to accused No. 1 on 14.08.2026 and that dowry and other presentations were given at the time of the marriage. It is alleged that, within one week of the marriage, the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 6 began physically and mentally harassing her and demanding additional dowry in cash, insisting that she procure the amount by selling her parents’ property. It is further alleged that accused No. 3 used to compel her to disclose personal and intimate details of her married life. The complaint also alleges that, on 28.11.2025, accused No. 1 took her to the house of accused No. 4, where she was made to perform all the household chores and was subjected to humiliation. Subsequently, on 17.10.2025, petitioner No. 1/accused No. 1 allegedly took her to a hospital without her consent and, by threatening to upload her private photographs on the internet, compelled her to undergo an abortion. It is further alleged that he forced her to resign from her employment, frequently picked quarrels with her, subjected her to mental cruelty, and threatened to take her life on several occasions. On the basis of the said report, a crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case due to the matrimonial disputes between petitioner No. 1/accused No. 1 and the de facto complainant. He contends that the de facto complainant spent only 90 days of her matrimonial life with petitioner No. 1 and that the allegation that the petitioners began harassing her for additional dowry within one week of the marriage is highly improbable. He further submits that the allegations against accused Nos. 2 to 6 are vague, lack specific particulars regarding their individual roles, and do not attribute to them any involvement in the alleged termination of the pregnancy. As regards the allegation of abortion, learned counsel contends that, when petitioner No. 1 and the de facto complainant visited the hospital, the latter voluntarily underwent the termination of her pregnancy and that petitioner No. 1 could not take any action in that regard, as the choice to continue with the pregnency was hers. He further points out that the alleged termination of pregnancy took place on 17.10.2025, whereas the police report was lodged only on 15.06.2026, and that no explanation has been furnished for the delay in lodging the report. Learned counsel also submits that the de facto complainant initiated the present proceedings with the intention of harassing the petitioners and their family members. He further contends that the Investigating Agency registered the case without adhering to the directions laid down in Lalita Kumari. Nevertheless, he submits that the petitioners are willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. On these grounds, he prays that the petitioners be granted anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the application for anticipatory bail. However, he fairly submits that the offences alleged against petitioner Nos. 2 to 6/accused Nos. 2 to 6 are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years, whereas Section 89 of BNS is specifically invoked against petitioner No. 1/accused No. 1. He further submits that specific allegations have been made against each of the petitioners and that the allegations against petitioner No. 1 are particularly serious, inasmuch as he is alleged to have threatened to upload the de facto complainant’s private photographs on the internet, compelled her to undergo an abortion against her will, and threatened her with dire consequences. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the allegations warrant a thorough investigation and that the investigation is still in progress. According to him, granting pre-arrest protection to the petitioners at this stage may hamper the investigation, particularly as their presence may be necessary for its effective completion. He, therefore, prays that the application for anticipatory bail be dismissed.

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

The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioners is that they subjected the de facto complainant to physical and mental harassment in connection with demands for additional dowry. In addition, petitioner No. 1/accused No. 1 is alleged to have compelled her to resign from her employment, forced her to undergo an abortion against her will, and threatened to circulate her private photographs on the internet. These allegations are undoubtedly serious and warrant due consideration while examining the petitioners’ prayer for anticipatory bail. At the same time, the Court, at this stage, is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or record definitive findings on disputed questions of fact that fall for determination during the investigation or trial.

The principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction in matters of anticipatory bail were authoritatively explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, and reaffirmed by the Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1. These decisions emphasise that the power to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised judiciously, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, without imposing unwarranted restrictions on personal liberty or disregarding the legitimate requirements of investigation. The relevant considerations include the nature and gravity of the accusations, the specific role attributed to each accused, the prima facie material available, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice or influencing witnesses, the possibility of interference with the investigation, and the necessity for custodial interrogation. The Court must, therefore, undertake a balanced assessment of the competing interests of individual liberty and an effective, uninhibited investigation.

In the instant case, this Court has considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the respective roles attributed to the petitioners, the matrimonial context in which the dispute has arisen, the delay between the alleged incidents and the lodging of the police report, and the submission that the petitioners are willing to cooperate with the investigation. The delay in lodging the report is a relevant circumstance to be considered in the overall assessment, though it is not, by itself, decisive of the merits of the application. Equally, the seriousness of the allegations must be weighed against the actual requirements of the investigation and the necessity of arresting the petitioners.

Having regard to the material and submissions placed before this Court, and in the absence of any sufficiently demonstrated circumstance establishing that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is indispensable, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners’ prayer for anticipatory bail merits consideration. Accordingly, subject to the conditions imposed hereinafter, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, which shall be determined in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence collected during the investigation.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions:

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.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.