Chouta Sujatha @ Cheta Sujatha and others 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 pre-arrest bail.

The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 5 in Crime No.1435 of 2026 on the file of the Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Malkajgiri District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 89, 318(4), 352, 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’).

Heard Mr.Mahesh Mamindla, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that Accused No.1 allegedly induced the de facto complainant by making a false promise of marriage and subjected her to sexual exploitation since 2019. It is further alleged that she became pregnant on two occasions, that Accused No.1 caused her to terminate the pregnancies, misused her money and subsequently refused to marry her on the ground of her caste. The petitioners, being family members of Accused No.1, are alleged to have supported and encouraged him, exerted influence upon the de facto complainant to terminate her pregnancies against her will and wish, and abused and assaulted her by referring to her caste name. On the basis of these allegations, the present crime was registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations against them are omnibus and general, without any specific overt acts, and that they have been falsely implicated to exert undue pressure in the context of the relationship between Accused No.1 and the de facto complainant. Since both are adults and their relationship has continued since 2019, the same, according to the learned counsel, indicates its consensual nature. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he would submit that a consensual relationship which subsequently fails cannot be given a criminal colour or be weaponised by setting the criminal law into motion. He would further contend that, even if the allegations are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners are not made out. In particular, the allegation of caste-based abuse does not satisfy the requirement of the incident having occurred within “public view”, as contemplated under the SC/ST (POA) Act. The petitioners are willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court; hence, anticipatory bail is sought.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the de facto complainant has specifically attributed a role to the petitioners, alleging that they, along with Accused No.1, exerted influence upon her and compelled her to terminate her pregnancies against her will and wish. It is further submitted that the allegations of criminal force and assault, coupled with the specific incident in March, 2026, wherein the petitioners allegedly visited the de facto complainant’s place and abused her by referring to her caste, prima facie attract the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the issue as to whether the essential ingredients, including the requirement of “public view”, are ultimately established is a matter for consideration during the proceedings. He would further submit that the investigation is still in progress, 17 witnesses have been examined, and the presence of the petitioners may be required for an effective and unhindered investigation. Their custodial interrogation, at this stage, cannot be ruled out. Hence, dismissal of the petition is sought.

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

The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioners is that they allegedly facilitated termination of the de facto complainant’s pregnancy against her will and, on another occasion, abused and assaulted her by referring to her caste and used criminal force against her.

While considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or a detailed appreciation of rival versions. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS, is to be exercised having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the necessity for custodial interrogation, the possibility of fleeing from justice or repeating the offence, the likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and the impact of bail on the investigation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has enumerated these considerations in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694.

This Court is conscious of the bar contained in Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act against grant of anticipatory bail. However, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, such bar would not operate where the allegations, taken at their face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence under the said Act.

In the present case, insofar as the termination of pregnancy is concerned, the specific role attributed to the petitioners is that, since the elder brother of Accused No.1 was unmarried and was proposing to marry a woman belonging to a different caste, marriage and having a child would be improper and would adversely affect his marriage prospects. It is alleged that, upon such persuasion, they took her to a hospital and caused the pregnancy to be terminated. Whether the representation resulted in her free and voluntary consent or was made by way of misrepresentation is a matter requiring investigation, and no conclusive finding can be recorded at this stage.

As regards the allegation of caste-based abuse, the material presently available does not disclose sufficient particulars to prima facie establish the essential ingredients of the offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act, including the requisite circumstances in which the alleged caste-based abuse occurred. The said issue can appropriately be examined on the basis of the material collected during investigation.

Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioners, the absence of material demonstrating the necessity of their custodial interrogation, and their willingness to cooperate with the investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Their presence and cooperation can be secured by imposing appropriate conditions, so as to safeguard the investigation and the interests of the prosecution.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to 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.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.