Pallevena Sampath vs 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 the accused No.1 in FIR No.71 of 2026 on the file of Mutharam (M) Police Station, Ramagundam District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, “DP Act”).

Heard Mr.M.Bharath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant became acquainted with the petitioner through a matrimonial website. Thereafter, despite the de facto complainant's insistence on formally finalizing the marriage, the petitioner allegedly kept postponing the same on various pretexts. It is alleged that, on the assurance and promise of marriage, the petitioner attempted to establish physical intimacy with the de facto complainant. Believing his promise of marriage, the de facto complainant consented to meet him and engage in physical intimacy.

Subsequently, the petitioner, along with his mother, visited the residence of the de facto complainant and allegedly demanded dowry comprising Rs.50 lakhs in cash, gold ornaments, and a car and on agreement the marriage was fixed for 25.12.2024. However, on 22.12.2024, the petitioner is stated to have demanded additional dowry and insisted upon joint registration of land in the names of the petitioner and the de facto complainant. When the said demand was refused, the proposed marriage was cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioner is alleged to have met the de facto complainant on three occasions and attempted to establish physical intimacy.

It is further alleged that, on 11.01.2025, the petitioner blocked all communication with the de facto complainant. The matter was then brought before the police, and, in their presence, the petitioner and the other accused allegedly stated that the de facto complainant had maintained a relationship with the petitioner's brother-in-law, thereby damaging her reputation and causing her mental trauma. Based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent of the allegations. It is further contended that, even according to the complaint, the petitioner had merely attempted to establish physical intimacy on the promise of marriage. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner's family members had visited the residence of the de facto complainant, and the marriage had, in fact, been fixed, which clearly indicates that there was no prior deceptive intention on the part of the petitioner.

It is further contended that there is a delay of about 17 months in lodging the complaint. Learned counsel also submits that, after the matter was placed before the police, the petitioner and the de facto complainant executed a document of understanding, wherein they agreed that the dispute would be resolved in the presence of elders. It is, therefore, argued that, even if the allegations are accepted as true, and even assuming that physical intimacy took place between two consenting adults, the contention raised by the de facto complainant lacks substance. It is further submitted that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application, contending that the notice issued to the petitioner could not be served as he had refused to receive the same, whereupon the notice was affixed at his residence. It is further submitted that the petitioner established physical intimacy with the de facto complainant on the false promise of marriage and that the present crime came to be registered only after the demand for dowry and the failure of the marriage proposal, despite the agreement between the families.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the investigation is at a nascent stage and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for an effective investigation. It is contended that the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may result in non-cooperation by the petitioner and adversely affect the investigation. Accordingly, it is prayed that the application be dismissed.

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

The allegation against the petitioner is that, under the false promise of marriage, he attempted to establish physical intimacy with the de facto complainant and, thereafter, demanded dowry. It is alleged that, upon the refusal of the de facto complainant and her family to meet the additional dowry demands, the proposed marriage was cancelled. It is further alleged that, subsequently, the petitioner and the other accused made defamatory allegations against the de facto complainant, thereby tarnishing her reputation and causing her mental trauma.

It is well settled that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretionary remedy intended to safeguard the fundamental right to personal liberty, while simultaneously ensuring that the investigation is neither obstructed nor prejudiced. The Court, while exercising such jurisdiction, is required to strike a careful balance between the competing interests of individual liberty and the societal interest in a fair and effective criminal investigation.

The principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail have been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, wherein the Court held that deprivation of liberty is a serious matter and that custodial arrest should be resorted to only when it is imperative for the purposes of investigation.

Upon a prima facie assessment of the material available on record, this Court finds that, the allegations themselves disclose that the families of both parties had participated in discussions and the marriage had, in fact, been fixed for a specific date. These circumstances, at least at this stage, prima facie indicate that the proposed marriage had advanced beyond a mere informal relationship and had culminated in a formal engagement process involving both families. It is further evident from the prosecution case that the dispute appears to have escalated after disagreements relating to the alleged dowry demands, resulting in the cancellation of the proposed marriage. Whether the promise of marriage was false from its inception, whether the consent of the de facto complainant was obtained by deception, and whether the ingredients of the offences alleged are ultimately established are all matters that require a full-fledged investigation and appreciation of evidence during the course of trial. At this stage, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the merits of the prosecution case or record findings on disputed questions of fact.

The petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and there is no material presently placed before this Court to indicate that the petitioner is likely to abscond, evade the investigation or influence witnesses. The prosecution has also not placed any specific material demonstrating that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable. In view of the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a fit case for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail, subject to conditions to ensure his continued cooperation with the investigation and to safeguard the interests of justice.

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.