G.Rajinikanth vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

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 petitioner is arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No.1231 of 2026 on the file of Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

Heard Mr.Dr.N.Ravi Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a report stating that she had become acquainted with the petitioner, whereafter they exchanged their respective phone numbers. In due course, their acquaintance developed into a love relationship. It is alleged that, on 18.12.2024, the petitioner took the complainant to a particular place and, on the promise of marrying her, sexually exploited her. It is further alleged that, thereafter, on several occasions, the petitioner and the complainant developed a physical relationship. Subsequently, on 16.04.2026, when the complainant met the petitioner and proposed that they get married, the petitioner allegedly declined to marry her and switched off his mobile phone. Thus, alleging that the petitioner had cheated her by inducing her into a physical relationship on the false promise of marriage, the complaint came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are fabricated and that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that both the petitioner and the complainant are engaged in the teaching profession and that, even if the allegations are taken at their face value, the relationship between them was consensual. It is contended that the timeline furnished by the complainant herself, when considered in its entirety, creates serious doubt regarding the allegations made against the petitioner.

Learned counsel further submits that the complainant had, in fact, initially lodged a report before the police and subsequently addressed a letter stating that she was voluntarily withdrawing the complaint lodged by her on 13.06.2026. It is also submitted that, even prior to 13.06.2026, the complainant had addressed a letter to the Station House Officer stating that the petition dated 28.05.2026 was being withdrawn. However, the present complaint came to be registered only on 14.08.2026, without reference to the earlier occurrences between the parties. Learned counsel submits that these circumstances are relevant to the consideration of the petition for anticipatory bail. Nevertheless, the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition and submits that the complaint contains specific allegations that the petitioner sexually exploited the de facto complainant on the false promise of marriage, thereby prima facie disclosing the alleged offences. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that the presence of the petitioner may be required for the effective conduct of the investigation. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contends that, having regard to the specific nature of the allegations, granting anticipatory bail at this stage may result in the petitioner not cooperating with the investigation. Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the anticipatory-bail petition.

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

The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he sexually exploited the de facto complainant on the promise of marriage. According to the complaint, their relationship commenced on such assurance and continued thereafter, during which they allegedly had physical relations on several occasions. It is further alleged that, in April 2026, the complainant raised the issue of marriage, which the petitioner declined. Thus, the substance of the allegation concerns the nature of the promise of marriage and the circumstances in which the physical relationship was established and continued.

At the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, this Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the veracity of the allegations or a detailed appreciation of evidence, but only to make a prima facie assessment for determining whether the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail should be granted. In cases involving an alleged false promise of marriage, the distinction between a false promise from inception and a subsequent failure to fulfil a bona fide promise is material. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the promise must have been false from its inception, made in bad faith and without intention to honour it, and must have had a direct nexus with the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.

While considering anticipatory bail, the Court is required to take into account, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, his antecedents, the likelihood of absconding, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the possibility of repetition of the offence, and the necessity of custodial interrogation. The Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, reiterated that such relief has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and that custodial interrogation must be justified by the requirements of investigation. Further, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised that arrest should not be made mechanically or as a matter of routine and that the statutory requirements governing the necessity of arrest must be satisfied.

In the present case, having regard to the allegations, the chronology emerging from the complaint, the nature and duration of the relationship, the age and circumstances of the parties, and the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation, there is no material at this stage indicating a likelihood of his absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. There is also no specific material demonstrating that his custodial interrogation is indispensable for an effective investigation. The interests of the investigation can be adequately safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions requiring the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and remain available as and when required.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the ultimate culpability of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS, and extend the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to appropriate conditions to secure his availability and safeguard the interests of the prosecution.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions.

The petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad on or before 09.09.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release his on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer.

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of twelve (10) weeks from the date of his release on bail or until the filing of the final result, whichever is earlier.

The petitioner shall remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation.

The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation.

The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings before the court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.