Kolluri Seshi Kiran 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 sole Accused in Crime No. 621 of 2026 of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, facing accusations for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 74, 75, 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr. E. Uma Maheshwar Rao, learned counsel, argued on behalf of Mr. Enuganti Sudhanshu Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the de facto complainant came to Hyderabad in May 2025 for employment and was undergoing treatment for a prolactin-related medical condition. In that connection, she was referred to the petitioner/Accused, a Senior Consultant General Physician, on 13.07.2025. It is alleged that, on 14.01.2026, between 07:00 PM and 08:00 PM, the Accused sexually harassed and assaulted the de facto complainant by touching her breasts and private parts without her consent. It is further alleged that similar acts of sexual harassment and physical assault continued from January to April 2026, despite her refusal to have a physical relationship with him. The de facto complainant subsequently alleged that, on 04.04.2026, between 07:00 PM and 08:00 PM, the Accused inserted his finger into her private parts, causing bleeding.

It is further alleged that the Accused threatened the de facto complainant by claiming to have political connections and stating that the Police could not take any action against him. She also alleged that he compelled her to send messages, made her remain in his cabin for prolonged periods, and subjected her to physical and mental harassment. According to the de facto complainant, the Accused repeatedly promised to marry her after resolving his family issues and continued making such promises for about three months. She further alleged that the Accused caused her friend to speak on his behalf and attempted to portray her as being physically or psychologically unstable. The de facto complainant stated that, owing to the alleged acts, she was afraid and mentally disturbed and, accordingly, sought appropriate legal action. On the basis of her complaint, the crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the allegations made in the complaint are false, belated, and motivated. It is contended that the prosecution version is inherently improbable and that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of allegations that are not supported by the contemporaneous documentary and electronic material available on record. In particular, the petitioner relies upon hospital records, prescriptions, and WhatsApp messages to dispute the allegations made against him. With regard to the alleged incident dated 04.04.2026, it is specifically submitted that the hospital records and prescriptions would establish the actual dates on which the de facto complainant was consulted and that, according to the records relied upon by the petitioner, there was no consultation with the petitioner on 04.04.2026. It is contended that this circumstance casts serious doubt upon the allegation relating to the said date.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had already approached the Police on 02.06.2026 in relation to repeated messages allegedly being sent by the de facto complainant. It is contended that the WhatsApp communications relied upon by the petitioner allegedly continued even after the dates of the incidents complained of and that this circumstance creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution version. It is also submitted that there was an unexplained delay of about four months in lodging the complaint, which, according to the petitioner, further warrants consideration of his claim for anticipatory bail. It is further contended that the material relevant to the allegations is predominantly documentary and electronic in nature, including hospital records, prescriptions, and WhatsApp communications, and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of investigation. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, is a reputed Doctor, and has roots in society. Therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the process of law. The petitioner is stated to be willing to cooperate with the investigation and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition and submits that the crime was registered against the petitioner on allegations of repeated sexual harassment and assault upon the de facto complainant during the course of her treatment at the hospital between January 2026 and April 2026, including an alleged sexual assault on 04.04.2026, besides threats, compelling her to remain in his cabin, and promises of marriage, resulting in physical and mental harassment. It is further submitted that the investigation is in progress and that four witnesses have been examined. The prosecution disputes the petitioner’s claim that he lodged a complaint with the Panjagutta Police Station in June 2026, stating that he had only sent a message to senior Police Officers alleging that the de facto complainant was repeatedly contacting him, visiting the hospital, and causing nuisance, with a request that she be warned. According to the prosecution, despite being advised to lodge a formal complaint before the Police Station, the petitioner declined to do so.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioner’s claim that he did not meet the de facto complainant on 04.04.2026 is prima facie contradicted by the medical record and the prescription issued to the de facto complainant, which allegedly show that she attended a follow-up consultation with the petitioner at about 07:20 PM on that day and that the prescription bears his handwritten clinical advice. It is contended that the said material prima facie establishes the petitioner’s presence and consultation with the de facto complainant and casts doubt upon his defence. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that collection, verification, and examination of the evidence are still pending, the prosecution apprehends that the petitioner may not cooperate with the investigation if granted anticipatory bail. Hence, dismissal of the petition is sought.

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

Having considered the submissions, the question at this stage is whether the petitioner requires protection from arrest pending investigation. The allegations, particularly under Section 64 of the BNS are undoubtedly serious. However, the gravity of the offence, though an important consideration, is not by itself determinative of an application for anticipatory bail. The Court must consider the role attributed to the petitioner, the material presently available, the stage and requirements of investigation, the possibility of interference with the investigation or witnesses, and the necessity of custodial interrogation, while balancing personal liberty with the interests of justice.

Section 482 of the BNSS empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail and impose appropriate conditions to secure the applicant’s cooperation with the investigation and prevent interference with witnesses. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, the Constitution Bench held that the power of anticipatory bail is discretionary and must be exercised on consideration of the cumulative effect of the relevant circumstances, including the nature and seriousness of the accusation, antecedents, possibility of absconding, likelihood of interference with witnesses or investigation, and the interests of justice. These principles were reiterated in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court emphasised that the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts and circumstances of each case are relevant considerations.

In the present case, the prosecution principally relies upon the hospital medical record and prescription allegedly showing that the de facto complainant attended a follow-up consultation with the petitioner on 04.04.2026 at about 07:20 PM and that the prescription contains his handwritten clinical advice. While the existence and circumstances of such consultation require investigation, the medical record and prescription, by themselves, do not establish the alleged sexual assault. They may prima facie establish the petitioner’s presence and interaction with the de facto complainant, leaving the nature of such interaction to be investigated and appreciated at the appropriate stage.

The statements of LWs.2 and 3, as placed before the Court, also do not indicate that either witness witnessed the alleged assault inside the consultation cabin. Their knowledge is stated to have been derived from subsequent disclosures by the de facto complainant and, in one instance, through another witness. Their statements are therefore relevant to the surrounding circumstances and subsequent disclosures, but do not constitute direct evidence of the alleged acts.

The statement of the Doctor establishes, at this stage, the de facto complainant’s medical history and her referral to the petitioner for specialist treatment. The absence of an independent eyewitness, however, cannot by itself discredit the de facto complainant’s allegations. The credibility and consistency of her allegations and the evidentiary value of the medical records and prescriptions are matters for investigation and, if necessary, trial. At the anticipatory-bail stage, this Court is not required to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence.

The petitioner’s reliance on the alleged prior complaint dated 02.06.2026, WhatsApp communications, and the delay in lodging the complaint likewise cannot, at this stage, conclusively establish that the prosecution case is false or motivated. The prosecution disputes that any formal complaint was lodged and states that the petitioner merely sent a message to superior Police Officers alleging that the de facto complainant was repeatedly contacting him and visiting the hospital and requesting that she be warned. The nature, contents, timing, authenticity, and evidentiary significance of these communications, as well as the effect of the delay, require investigation and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage.

The investigation has progressed with the examination of four witnesses. The principal material relied upon by both sides comprises hospital records, prescriptions, and electronic communications, which are capable of being collected, preserved, and verified without necessarily requiring custodial detention. No specific material has been placed before the Court demonstrating that custodial interrogation is indispensable for recovery or discovery of any material fact. As reiterated by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 274, a mere assertion that custodial interrogation is required is insufficient; its necessity must be demonstrated with reference to the requirements of the investigation.

In the totality of the circumstances, having regard to the material presently available, the documentary and electronic nature of the principal evidence, the progress of investigation, the petitioner’s antecedents, and his willingness to cooperate, custodial detention has not, at this stage, been shown to be indispensable. The interests of investigation can be adequately safeguarded by imposing conditions to ensure the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused 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 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.