Goura Srisailam 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.195 of 2026 on the file of Yacharam Police Station police station for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 78(1), 75(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr.Sudarshan Malugari, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint dated 08.07.2026, alleging that the petitioner had been speaking to her for about six months and, during the preceding month, had started following her and repeatedly calling her, demanding that she speak with him. She further alleged that the petitioner threatened to kill her husband and children if she refused to accede to his demands. It was also alleged that, about ten days prior to the lodging of the complaint, while she was in her agricultural field, the petitioner caught hold of her hands, attempted to forcibly take her with him, and sought to establish physical intimacy with her. However, upon the arrival of her husband, the petitioner fled from the spot. She further alleged that, despite the intervention of village elders, the petitioner continued to harass and threaten her and, on 07.07.2026, sent a mobile phone to her through a village woman while continuing to threaten and pressurise her to establish physical relations with him.

During the course of investigation, the de facto complainant was further examined on 09.07.2026. In her further statement, she alleged, for the first time, that the petitioner had been following and harassing her for about six months, threatening her, and had forcibly committed rape upon her on four occasions in the agricultural field when she was alone. She further alleged that, about 10 to 15 days prior to the lodging of the complaint, the petitioner had again forcibly subjected her to sexual intercourse in the agricultural field, but that he fled when her husband arrived. She stated that she had not disclosed the alleged sexual assaults earlier due to fear of her husband and the petitioner. In view of these additional allegations made in her further statement, Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS was added to the offences already registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated owing to personal disputes, particularly as the agricultural lands of the petitioner and the de facto complainant are adjacent to each other. It is contended that the original complaint dated 08.07.2026 was confined to an allegation that the petitioner approached the de facto complainant near her agricultural field, caught hold of her hands, attempted to compel her to accompany him, and sought to establish a physical relationship with her, whereupon he fled on the arrival of her husband. However, in her further statement recorded within 24 hours, the complainant, for the first time, alleged that the petitioner had been following and harassing her for six months, threatening her, and had forcibly committed rape upon her on four separate occasions, in addition to alleging another incident in the agricultural field.

Learned counsel further submits that these allegations constitute material improvements upon the earliest version of the prosecution case, introducing allegations of repeated rape and threats to the complainant's husband and children, which were conspicuously absent from the original complaint. It is further contended that the allegations of repeated sexual assault are vague and do not disclose any specific date, time, or circumstances relating to each alleged occurrence. The delay in lodging the complaint, coupled with the subsequent explanation for such delay, is also submitted to be indicative of an afterthought. It is further argued that the case rests substantially upon the statement of the de facto complainant and that there is no independent corroborative material. Learned counsel submits that no recovery is required to be effected from the petitioner and, therefore, custodial interrogation is unnecessary.

It is also submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident and is engaged in agricultural activities, has deep roots in society, and is not likely to abscond or interfere with the investigation. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and 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 opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations disclose a serious offence involving repeated sexual assault. It is submitted that, in her initial complaint, the victim reported incidents of stalking, harassment, criminal intimidation, and attempts by the petitioner to compel her to establish physical intimacy. During the course of investigation, however, in her further statement, she disclosed that the petitioner had forcibly committed rape upon her on four occasions while she was alone in the agricultural field.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the investigation is still in progress and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for an effective and comprehensive investigation. It is contended that the petitioner is also involved in another crime of a similar nature, being Crime No.97 of 2001 of Yacharam Police Station, and that there is a likelihood of repetition of the offence. It is further submitted that, if enlarged on anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to influence or intimidate the victim and other prosecution witnesses. Therefore, having regard to the gravity and seriousness of the allegations, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition.

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

The contention of the petitioner is that the allegations of repeated sexual assault constitute material improvements over the earliest version of the prosecution case; that there was a delay in disclosing the alleged sexual assaults; that the subsequent allegations lack specific particulars regarding the individual occurrences; and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted. On the other hand, the prosecution contends that the further statement merely brings on record the complete facts which the victim had initially withheld due to fear. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress, that the petitioner has criminal antecedents involving an offence of a similar nature, and that there is a reasonable apprehension of the petitioner intimidating the victim or other witnesses, tampering with the evidence, or repeating the alleged offence.

In this context, it is pertinent to note that, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS is discretionary and is intended to protect individual liberty while, at the same time, ensuring that a fair, effective, and unhindered investigation is carried out. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 held that the power to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised judiciously, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, while balancing the fundamental right to personal liberty with the interests of a fair investigation. Similarly, in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, the likelihood of repetition of a similar offence, the possibility of false implication, and the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses or obstructing the investigation are among the relevant factors to be considered while deciding an application for anticipatory bail.

Further, at the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is not ordinarily expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations or to record definitive findings on disputed questions of fact. The effect of the alleged improvements in the subsequent statement, the explanation offered for the delay in disclosure, and the evidentiary value of the rival versions are matters which primarily fall within the domain of investigation and, if a charge-sheet is filed, may appropriately be considered at the subsequent stages of the proceedings. At the same time, the seriousness and gravity of the accusation, by themselves, cannot constitute the sole ground either for granting or refusing anticipatory bail. The Court is required to assess the circumstances of the particular case, including whether custodial interrogation is genuinely necessary for a fair and effective investigation and whether the grant of protection is likely to prejudice the investigation or otherwise adversely affect the interests of justice.

In the instant case, upon consideration of the cumulative effect of the circumstances, including the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during the course of investigation, the stage of the investigation, the necessity or otherwise of custodial interrogation, and the possibility of the petitioner influencing the victim or other prosecution witnesses or tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not shown to be indispensable for the purpose of investigation. At the same time, appropriate conditions can be imposed to safeguard the interests of the prosecution, ensure the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation, and prevent any attempt to influence the victim or witnesses or otherwise interfere with the course of investigation. Balancing these considerations with the petitioner's right to personal liberty, this Court finds it appropriate to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to stringent conditions.

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.