Kartheek Kiran Kashyapa Dhupati vs The State Of Telangana

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

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in FIR No.450 of 2026 on the file of Nagole Police Station, Malkajgiri District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 127(4), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard M/s Nagurbabu Law Firm, 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 the de facto complainant lodged a report on 15.07.2026 stating that she became acquainted with the petitioner in the year 2012 during the selection process for an interview conducted by a news channel. Thereafter, they developed a love relationship, during which the petitioner allegedly promised to marry her. Believing the said promise, the de facto complainant continued the relationship, and the petitioner is alleged to have sexually exploited her. However, the promised marriage was repeatedly postponed by the petitioner on one pretext or another.

It is further alleged that, the petitioner took from the de facto complainant a sum of Rs.23 lakhs, gold ornaments weighing 3 tulas, and a mobile phone. The petitioner is also alleged to have hacked her social media accounts, blackmailed her, and misused her personal information. According to the prosecution, when the de facto complainant insisted that the petitioner marry her, he refused and threatened her with dire consequences. It is further alleged that, being fully aware of her family background, the petitioner used such knowledge to intimidate and threaten her. As a result, the de facto complainant and her family members have allegedly been living in constant fear.

The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner habitually suspected the de facto complainant of maintaining an illicit relationship with another person and, on that basis, subjected her to mental, sexual, and emotional harassment. It is also alleged that the petitioner wrongfully confined the de facto complainant for a period of 14 days against her will. Thus, according to the prosecution, although the de facto complainant genuinely intended to marry the petitioner, he deceived her by making a false promise of marriage and exploited her physically, mentally, and financially, thereby causing her immense trauma and posing a serious threat to her life and safety. Based on the said report, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is false and has been foisted against the petitioner. It is contended that, even according to the allegations in the complaint, the parties had been in a consensual relationship since 2012. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations pertain to certain alleged misconduct, which had already been clarified by the petitioner. However, in connection with the said issue, the de facto complainant, along with certain other persons, allegedly came to the petitioner's residence carrying placards displaying the petitioner's photographs, following which the petitioner's father lodged a report on 09.07.2026. It is therefore contended that the present crime has been registered only as a counterblast to the said report and is an afterthought.

Learned counsel further submits that there is no material to indicate that the petitioner cheated the de facto complainant in any manner. It is also contended that the allegations relating to wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation are vague and unsupported by specific particulars. According to the petitioner, the relationship between the parties subsequently turned sour, and the present complaint has been lodged solely with an intention to harass him. Nevertheless, it is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that notice in the present petition has been duly served on the de facto complainant. He further, opposed the petition on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are specific and serious. It is submitted that the petitioner himself admits the existence of a relationship between the parties. The prosecution case is that, under the guise of such relationship, the petitioner exploited the de facto complainant both physically and financially. It is further submitted that, when the de facto complainant insisted that the petitioner marry her, he allegedly threatened her with dire consequences.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioner is alleged to be in possession of certain photographs and other digital material pertaining to the de facto complainant, the disclosure of which would seriously prejudice her personal interests. According to the prosecution, the petitioner threatened to make such material viral if she approached the authorities or lodged a complaint against him. It is therefore contended that these allegations, including the threats allegedly extended to the de facto complainant, warrant a thorough investigation.

It is further submitted that the examination of the de facto complainant has not yet been completed and that the examination of other material witnesses is also pending. According to the prosecution, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to facilitate the recovery of the relevant material and to ensure an effective investigation. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.

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

The allegations against the petitioner are that, under the guise of a promise to marry the de facto complainant, he subjected her to physical and financial exploitation over a prolonged period. It is further alleged that, when the de facto complainant insisted upon marriage, the petitioner refused and threatened her with dire consequences, including making her private photographs and other digital material available in the public domain. On the other hand, the petitioner contends that the allegations are false and have been levelled only after the relationship between the parties turned sour. According to him, the relationship was purely consensual, and the monetary transactions between the parties were in the nature of hand loans, which are now being misconstrued as instances of financial exploitation.

These rival contentions involve disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of considering an application under Section 482 of the BNSS seeking anticipatory bail. At this stage, the Court is only required to examine whether the petitioner has made out a case for the exercise of the extraordinary discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations.

It is well settled that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to strike a delicate balance between the fundamental right to personal liberty and the societal interest in ensuring a fair and effective investigation. The factors ordinarily relevant for consideration include the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, the likelihood of influencing or intimidating witnesses or tampering with evidence, the antecedents of the accused, and the necessity of custodial interrogation. These principles have been consistently reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1. Equally, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphatically held that the power to arrest does not translate into a mandatory duty to arrest. Arrest should not be effected merely because the law permits it; rather, it must be justified by the necessities of investigation.

In the present case, even according to the prosecution, the petitioner and the de facto complainant had been in a relationship since the year 2012, and the complaint refers to several incidents spanning over a considerable period prior to the registration of the crime. The truthfulness of these allegations, the circumstances in which the relationship developed, the nature of the financial transactions, and the allegations of wrongful conduct are all matters that require a thorough investigation and, if necessary, adjudication during trial on the basis of legally admissible evidence. At this stage, the principal submission of the prosecution is that the presence of the petitioner is required to secure the digital material allegedly in his possession and to prevent any misuse or dissemination of the personal digital content pertaining to the de facto complainant. Except for the said requirement, no specific material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the petitioner is likely to abscond, evade the investigation, influence witnesses, or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. The petitioner has also expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigating agency and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the stage of the investigation, the settled principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, and in the absence of any compelling circumstances demonstrating the necessity for custodial interrogation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interests of justice would be adequately safeguarded by granting the petitioner the protection of anticipatory bail, subject to conditions ensuring the petitioner’s full cooperation with the investigation, preservation of electronic evidence, and protection of the interests of the prosecution.

For the aforesaid reasons, 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.