Kotikalapudi Praveen Kumar vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

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 Zero FIR dated 25.06.2026 of Kadiam Police Station, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, which is culminated into FIR No. 1071 of 2026 of Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, facing accusations for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 77, 115(2), 351(2), 79, 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr. T.L. Nayan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State and also respondent No.2/de facto complainant, who appeared in-person.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner/Accused induced respondent No.2/de facto complainant into a relationship on the false promise of marriage, established a physical relationship with her, dishonestly obtained a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- and gold ornaments weighing approximately 30 grams, secretly recorded her private photographs and videos, and thereafter assaulted and intimidated her. On the basis of these allegations, the offences alleged in the report were stated to have been committed, and the present Crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, even if the allegations contained in the report are accepted at their face value, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 69 of the BNS are not made out, as there is no material to indicate that the alleged promise of marriage was false at the inception of the relationship. It is submitted that the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was admittedly consensual and continued for a considerable period, and that the subsequent breakdown of such relationship, by itself, cannot constitute a criminal offence. It is further contended that the subsequent FIR materially enlarged the allegations by introducing accusations of sexual exploitation, cheating and misappropriation, and that such subsequent allegations warrant careful judicial scrutiny.

Learned counsel further submits that the railway registration records, electronic communications, banking records, PhonePe transactions, loan documents and the undertaking allegedly executed by the de facto complainant are documentary and electronic in nature and require objective verification during the course of investigation. According to the learned counsel, such evidence can be collected and verified without subjecting the petitioner to custodial interrogation. It is also submitted that the petitioner has himself lodged a complaint alleging extortion and false implication. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents, has a permanent place of abode, is willing to cooperate with the investigation, and undertakes to comply with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as respondent No.2/ de facto complainant, opposed the petition. It is contended that the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offences. It is submitted that the petitioner induced the de facto complainant to enter into a physical relationship on the false promise of marriage, dishonestly obtained a sum of Rs.12.5 lakhs and gold ornaments, secretly recorded her private photographs and videos, and thereafter threatened to publish the same unless further money was paid. It is further submitted that the earlier Crime No.143 of 2026, registered on the file of Kadiam UPS, East Godavari District, initially contained allegations relating to the marriage allegedly solemnized on 10.11.2025 and the subsequent threats allegedly extended by the petitioner and his father. According to the prosecution, the present Crime was registered on the basis of a subsequent complaint containing more detailed allegations of sexual exploitation, cheating, criminal intimidation and misappropriation of money and gold. It is, therefore, contended that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and that the nature and gravity of the accusations, coupled with the material collected during investigation, disentitle the petitioner from the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

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

Admittedly, the parties were in a prolonged relationship, and the prosecution case rests upon allegations concerning the promise of marriage, the physical relationship between the parties, financial transactions and transfer of money, gifting of gold ornaments, recording of private photographs and videos, assault, and criminal intimidation. The petitioner disputes these allegations, contending that the relationship was consensual, that the financial transactions were of a different nature, and that he has been falsely implicated. These rival versions are sought to be supported by reference to documentary and electronic material, including banking records, PhonePe transactions, loan documents, electronic communications, and the alleged undertaking. The authenticity, context, and evidentiary value of such material are matters that require investigation.

At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a detailed appreciation or evaluation of the evidence. The scope of consideration in an application for anticipatory bail is limited, inter alia, to examining whether the circumstances of the case disclose a genuine necessity for custodial interrogation. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is an important facet of the protection of personal liberty and that arrest ought not to be resorted to routinely, particularly where custodial interrogation is not shown to be necessary for a meaningful investigation.

In the present case, the principal allegations relating to the financial and electronic transactions are capable of being investigated, at least substantially, through documentary and digital evidence. The said material is required to be collected, verified and evaluated during the course of investigation. However, no specific material has been placed before this Court at this stage to demonstrate that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for such investigation. The petitioner has a permanent place of residence, is undergoing professional training, and has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation. These circumstances are relevant while considering whether the extraordinary power of arrest and custodial interrogation is warranted in the facts of the present case.

As regards the offence under Section 69 of the BNS, the question as to whether the alleged promise of marriage was false from its inception, or whether the relationship subsequently failed or broke down, involves factual matters that are required to be examined in the course of investigation and, if necessary, at trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46, has held that a mere breach of a promise to marry does not, by itself, constitute an offence, unless it is established that the promise was false from the very inception and was made with the intention of obtaining the consent of the woman for a sexual relationship. The applicability of that principle to the facts of the present case will necessarily depend upon the material collected during investigation and cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of consideration of the present application.

The earlier registration of Crime No.143 of 2026, the subsequent registration of the zero FIR culminating in Crime No.1071 of 2026, and the petitioner's allegations of extortion and false implication are also matters requiring investigation. At this stage, this Court is not required to conclusively adjudicate upon the rival versions or determine the ultimate truth of these allegations.

Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, particularly the fact that the investigation predominantly concerns documentary and electronic material, the petitioner's stated willingness to cooperate with the investigation, his permanent place of residence, and the settled principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is of the view that the interests of the investigation can be adequately safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions upon the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to extend the protection of anticipatory bail, subject to such conditions as may be imposed.

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.