Bhukya Sai Kumar vs The State Of Telangana

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

The petitioner is arrayed as Accused in FIR No.846 of 2025 on the file of Saroornagar police station for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 89 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr.Srikanth Chintala, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Syed YasarMamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the de facto complainant/victim became acquainted with the petitioner/accused in January 2024 while working with him at a Film News channel, and their acquaintance subsequently developed into a relationship. It is alleged that the petitioner promised to marry her and, on the said assurance, established physical relations with her on several occasions. The victim further alleges that the petitioner concealed his existing marriage by representing that he had divorced his wife and would marry her. He also allegedly induced her to leave her employment on the assurance that they would start a YouTube channel together.

It is further alleged that, in July 2025, after the victim informed the petitioner about her pregnancy, he assaulted her by hitting her on the abdomen, resulting in the death of the foetus and thereby causing abortion. She also alleges that the petitioner disclosed their relationship at her workplace and showed her photographs to others, thereby causing adverse consequences and intimidating her. It is further alleged that the petitioner demanded approximately Rs.2 lakhs from her through his father's account by way of PhonePe and Google Pay, stating that the money was required to resolve his family issues and facilitate their marriage.

The victim further states that, in March 2026, the petitioner took her to Kerala for three days in connection with her treatment and continued to have a physical relationship with her. She alleges that one such occurrence took place on 30.03.2026 at an OYO hotel near Tarnaka. Thereafter, she alleges that the petitioner and his family members assaulted her and her family members in connection with the marriage issue. She further refers to a family meeting held at Tarnaka on 08.06.2026, during which the petitioner’s wife and relatives allegedly attacked her family members, following which a police complaint was lodged.

The victim further alleges that the petitioner thereafter stopped communicating with her and informed her that he would continue living with his wife and would not marry her. He allegedly threatened to circulate morphed photographs of her and her sister to her father’s phone. On the other hand, the petitioner lodged a complaint dated 06.09.2026 before the O.U. Police Station stating that, on 05.08.2026, the victim had consumed 15 diabetic tablets belonging to her father, allegedly in an attempt to end her life, and was admitted to a hospital. Basing on the said complaint, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to personal disputes between the parties. It is contended that the allegations contain material inconsistencies with regard to the chronology of events, particularly as the alleged last incident is stated to have occurred subsequent to the family disputes and the circumstances leading to the registration of the FIR.

The petitioner also relies upon the MoU dated 30.06.2026 and the complaint allegedly lodged before the police on 06.08.2026, contending that the complainant continued to harass him despite having entered into an agreement not to contact him. It is alleged that she circulated defamatory messages through social media, abused him when questioned about the same, and caused him mental harassment, and that appropriate legal action was therefore sought.

Learned counsel further submits that, even according to the complaint, after the victim came to know about the petitioner’s marriage and lodged the report, her subsequent conduct, including her continued contact with the petitioner and her travelling with him to Kerala, gives rise to serious factual disputes requiring consideration during investigation.

Learned counsel further submits that the alleged offences predominantly relate to past events and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. He further points out that the actual dispute between the parties concerns the complainant’s Instagram page, which has a considerable number of followers, and her alleged demand for exclusive rights over the same, coupled with her insistence that the petitioner give up his rights and involvement in relation thereto.

It is further submitted that, for this reason, the petitioner has also been subjected to unscrupulous messages sent to his family members and trolls and derogatory messages posted against him, with the object of harassing him and compelling him to accede to her demands. The petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. It is also submitted that he is a permanent resident, is employed, and has no criminal antecedents. He further undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. Learned counsel submits that the arrest of the petitioner would cause undue hardship to him and his family, particularly as he is the sole earning member. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and disclose his involvement in the offences alleged. It is submitted that the victim has specifically stated that the petitioner induced her into a relationship by promising to marry her while concealing his existing marriage, and that, on such representation, he established physical relations with her.

It is further submitted that the petitioner assaulted the victim during her pregnancy, resulting in the death of the foetus and causing abortion, obtained money from her, and subsequently threatened to circulate nude photographs. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, these allegations require investigation, particularly with regard to the digital transactions, medical evidence, electronic materials, and other relevant circumstances.

It is further submitted that the alleged delay in lodging the complaint and the disputed MoU are matters for investigation and cannot, at this stage, be relied upon to discredit the specific allegations made by the victim. The subsequent conduct of the parties and the circumstances surrounding their relationship also require examination during the course of investigation. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor therefore submits that, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the requirement to collect and verify the relevant evidence, the petition for anticipatory bail is liable to be dismissed.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials available on record.

It is a settled position that, at the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, detailed appreciation of evidence or adjudication upon disputed questions of fact is neither warranted nor appropriate. The Court is required to consider the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material placed before it, the necessity of custodial interrogation, and the likelihood of the petitioner cooperating with the investigation, without recording any conclusive findings on the merits of the rival versions.

A careful consideration of the material placed before this Court indicates that there are disputed circumstances concerning the chronology of the relationship between the parties, the alleged last incident, the subsequent conduct of the parties, the family dispute dated 08.06.2026, the alleged MoU dated 30.06.2026, and the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 06.08.2026. These circumstances give rise to competing versions of the events and are matters which require examination during the course of investigation. At this stage, this Court cannot conclusively determine the evidentiary significance or correctness of either version.

It is also relevant to note that the petitioner relies upon the MoU dated 30.06.2026 and his complaint dated 06.08.2026. According to the petitioner, under the said MoU, the parties agreed not to maintain any further relationship and, thereafter, there was no further conduct on his part giving rise to the allegations made against him. The victim, on the other hand, has put forward a different version concerning the continuation of their relationship and the subsequent events. These competing versions involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of considering anticipatory bail and are therefore left open for investigation and, if necessary, trial.

As regards the offence under Section 69 of the BNS, the nature and duration of the relationship, the subsequent conduct of the complainant even after she allegedly came to know about the petitioner’s existing marriage, and the rival versions advanced by the parties are relevant circumstances requiring investigation. At this stage, however, it would not be appropriate to record any conclusive finding regarding the petitioner’s intention from the inception of the relationship. The question whether the alleged promise to marry was made with the requisite intention from the inception, as alleged, or whether the subsequent circumstances give rise to a different inference, is a matter to be examined on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation and, ultimately, at trial.

Likewise, the allegations relating to miscarriage/abortion require examination with reference to the medical records, the nature and extent of the alleged assault, the medical circumstances surrounding the pregnancy, and such other evidence as may become available during investigation. The allegations concerning the financial transactions and the alleged threats relating to the circulation or misuse of photographs can also be investigated through documentary and electronic evidence, including transaction records, communications, mobile or other digital material, and other relevant electronic evidence. The delay in lodging the complaint, by itself, cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution.

However, in the present case, the circumstances surrounding the delay, when considered in the context of the chronology placed before the Court, particularly the alleged last physical relationship on 30.03.2026, the family dispute on 08.06.2026, the alleged MoU dated 30.06.2026, the petitioner’s complaint dated 06.08.2026, and the present complaint dated 07.08.2026, have evidentiary significance which requires examination during investigation. The effect and evidentiary value of these circumstances are therefore left open for consideration by the Investigating Agency and, at the appropriate stage, by the trial Court.

Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, this Court also takes note of the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident, is employed, and has undertaken to cooperate with the investigation. There is no specific material placed before this Court at this stage to indicate that the petitioner is likely to abscond or deliberately interfere with the investigation or the collection of evidence. The allegations, including those relating to the relationship between the parties, the alleged promise to marry, the circumstances concerning the pregnancy and alleged miscarriage/abortion, the financial transactions, and the alleged threats involving photographs, undoubtedly require investigation. However, having regard to the nature of the material presently available, the disputed questions of fact arising from the rival versions of the parties, and the absence of specific material demonstrating a genuine necessity for custodial interrogation, this Court is of the view that the interests of justice would be adequately served by protecting the petitioner from arrest, subject to appropriate conditions ensuring his availability and cooperation with the investigation.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or the defence version, and leaving all disputed questions of fact and evidentiary issues open for consideration in accordance with law, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

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.