Jeripothula Ravi Kumar vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

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

Crl.P. No. 12142 of 2026 is filed by the petitioner/Accused No. 1 and Crl.P. No. 12120 of 2026 is filed by the petitioner/Accused No. 4 in Crime No. 393 of 2026 of Jangaon Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 296(b), 115(2), 351(2), 108 read with Section 62, read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Since these Criminal Petitions have been filed by the petitioners/accused seeking identical reliefs in relation to the selfsame crime, the petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

Heard Mr. G. Jithender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State; and Mr. Nimma Narayana, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant, a divorcee and practicing Advocate, obtained a mutual divorce in 2021, thereafter shifted to Jangaon and joined an office as a Junior Advocate, where she became acquainted with Accused No.1, who is also a Junior Advocate. It is alleged that on 22.03.2023, Accused No.1 forcibly subjected the de facto complainant to sexual intercourse and thereafter continued the relationship with her on the alleged false promise of marriage, while threatening to damage her reputation and professional career. It is further alleged that Accused No.1 assaulted, abused and harassed the de facto complainant, controlled her movements, compelled her to consume emergency contraceptive pills, introduced her to his family as his prospective wife and lived with her for about two years. Subsequently, Accused No.1 allegedly refused to marry her, made defamatory remarks concerning her being a divorcee and having a child, and repeatedly prevented her from pursuing other matrimonial alliances by again assuring her that he would marry her.

Owing to the alleged harassment, the de facto complainant claimed that she attempted to commit suicide on 24.05.2026 and again on 08.07.2026 by consuming a poisonous substance. It is further alleged that, during a panchayath held on 31.05.2026, Accused No.1 refused to marry her, while Accused Nos.2 and 3 provoked her to commit suicide. The de facto complainant also alleged that, at the Police Station and during mediation before the Bar Association on 13.07.2026, Accused No.3 and petitioner/Accused No.4 abused her, made derogatory remarks concerning her character and instigated her to commit suicide. It is also alleged that petitioner/Accused No.1 removed and retained her personal belongings and office equipment without her consent. On the basis of the representation dated 24.07.2026, the crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made in the complaint are false, vague and an afterthought, and that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. It is contended that the principal allegations relating to the alleged promise of marriage and sexual relationship are directed against petitioner/Accused No.1 alone, whereas the allegations against petitioner/Accused No.4 are confined mainly to his alleged abuse and humiliation of the de facto complainant during mediation before the Jangaon Bar Association, without attributing any specific overt act to him constituting the alleged offences.

Learned counsel submits that Accused No.1 and the de facto complainant were in a consensual living relationship since 2023 and that the subsequent allegations have been materially improved. In this regard, Accused No.1 relies upon an earlier complaint dated 21.05.2026 submitted before the Police Station, Tarigoppula, which, according to him, referred to the living relationship but did not contain the allegations concerning the alleged sexual intercourse on 22.03.2023. It is further submitted that Accused No.1 has supporting material in the form of financial transaction records showing payments of approximately Rs.10,00,000/- to the de facto complainant, photographs, messages and audio recordings allegedly relating to the payment of Rs.10,00,000/-. According to the petitioner/Accused No.1, such material supports the contention that the subsequent allegations are disputed matters requiring proper appreciation during investigation and trial.

Learned counsel further contends that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not prima facie attracted against the petitioners, particularly petitioner/Accused No.4, and that mere participation in, or alleged abuse during, a panchayath does not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. It is also submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and that nothing is required to be recovered from them. The petitioners undertake to cooperate with the investigation, appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required, and further contend that the procedural safeguards contemplated under Section 35 of the BNSS are required to be followed before resorting to arrest.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are practicing Advocates, have permanent residences, have no criminal antecedents and are not likely to abscond or tamper with the investigation. It is further contended that their arrest would cause serious prejudice to their professional reputation, careers and legal practice. The petitioners are stated to be ready and willing to abide by any conditions imposed and to furnish the necessary sureties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on the authority of Allaveni Rajeshwari v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2006 (1) ALD (Crl.) 980 (AP), submits that, in the context of Section 306 IPC, mere abuse, humiliation or threatening words, without the requisite mens rea and an intentional positive act intended to drive a person to commit suicide, would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. Further, placing reliance on Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2024 INSC 897, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the nature and duration of the relationship and the surrounding circumstances while examining an allegation of sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage, and distinguished such a case from a subsequent breach of a genuine promise. It was held that the circumstances and duration of the relationship are relevant in determining the nature of consent and the allegations. Thus, it is contended that the prolonged relationship between the de facto complainant and petitioner/Accused No.1, along with the surrounding circumstances, may also be taken into consideration. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State opposed the bail petitions and submitted that the investigation has prima facie disclosed material against Accused Nos.1 and 4. It is contended that Accused No.1 developed a physical relationship with the de facto complainant on the alleged promise of marriage, continued the relationship for about four years and thereafter refused to marry her, apart from subjecting her to harassment and humiliation. It is further submitted that, due to the alleged continuous harassment, the de facto complainant attempted to commit suicide on two occasions. Learned counsel submits that petitioner/Accused No.4, along with the other accused, allegedly supported petitioner/Accused No.1 and abused, humiliated, intimidated and instigated the de facto complainant to commit suicide. In particular, during the Bar Association panchayath, when Accused No.1 allegedly refused to marry the de facto complainant and offered an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, petitioner/Accused No.4 is alleged to have abused and humiliated her.

It is further submitted that, during the course of investigation, eight witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded, and that further evidence is yet to be collected. It is pointed out that Accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested and that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature. It is submitted that there is prima facie material against Accused No.1 with regard to the relationship, the alleged promise of marriage and the subsequent harassment, and against Accused No.4 with regard to the alleged abuse and intimidation of the de facto complainant. It is further apprehended that, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they may tamper with the evidence, influence or intimidate the de facto complainant and other witnesses, and may not cooperate with the investigation. Since the investigation is still pending, it is submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required for effective investigation.

The respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, 1990 (1) SCC 550, wherein it was held that the testimony of a prosecutrix in a sexual offence is that of a competent witness and cannot be discarded merely on account of the absence of corroboration, but must be assessed with due care in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Thus, it is pleaded that, as the statement of the de facto complainant is consistent with the averments in the complaint, and having regard to the nature of the offences, the bail petitions are liable to be dismissed.

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

As per the prosecution, petitioner/Accused No.1 developed a physical relationship with the de facto complainant on the promise of marriage, continued the relationship for a considerable period, thereafter refused to marry her and subjected her to harassment and humiliation.

At the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or record findings on the merits of the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, held that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the relevant factors include the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

The defence of petitioner/Accused No.1 is that the relationship was consensual and that the nature of the relationship, which continued for a substantial period, cannot be wholly disregarded at this stage, particularly in view of the earlier complaint, communications, financial transactions, photographs and other material relied upon by him. In Mahesh Damu Khare (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the duration of the relationship and the surrounding circumstances while examining an allegation of sexual intercourse on a false promise to marry. Nevertheless, whether the promise was false from its inception and what evidentiary value is to be attached to the defence material are matters to be considered during investigation and trial.

As regards the allegation of abetment of suicide, mere abuse, humiliation, disagreement or unpleasant words, in the absence of the requisite intentional instigation or conduct having a proximate nexus with the suicide, would not, by themselves, constitute abetment. The principle laid down in Allaveni Rajeshwari (supra) is relevant in this regard. At the same time, the prosecution is entitled to rely upon the entire course of the alleged harassment and the surrounding circumstances preceding the suicide attempts of the de facto complainant. Whether the alleged conduct constitutes mere abuse or amounts to intentional instigation is, therefore, a matter to be assessed on the basis of the evidence collected during the course of investigation.

As against petitioner/Accused No.4, the specific allegation is that, during the Bar Association Panchayath, he abused and humiliated the de facto complainant and allegedly instigated her to commit suicide. His role, therefore, has to be independently assessed with reference to the ingredients of the offences alleged against him and the statements of the witnesses, notwithstanding that he is not alleged to have been involved in the relationship between Accused No.1 and the de facto complainant.

The prosecution states that eight witnesses have been examined and that further investigation and collection of material are still pending. The judgment in Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain (supra) supports the proposition that the allegations of a woman alleging sexual exploitation require due and contextual consideration. However, the said principle does not dispense with the requirement of establishing the statutory ingredients of the offences against the accused. Likewise, the mere pendency of investigation or a general apprehension of tampering with evidence, by itself, is not conclusive against the grant of anticipatory bail.

The petitioners have asserted that they are practicing Advocates, are permanent residents, have no criminal antecedents and are willing to cooperate with the investigation are relevant considerations while assessing the necessity of custodial arrest. Having regard to the alleged individual role of each petitioner and the material presently available on record, custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary at this stage. The apprehensions expressed by the prosecution can, therefore, be addressed by imposing appropriate safeguards and conditions to ensure the petitioners cooperation with the investigation.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed. The petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 4 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:

It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present applications 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.