U. Gyaneshwar & Anr. 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 petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 328 of 2026 of Malkajgiri Police Station, Malkajgiri, facing accusations for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 115(2), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr. S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1-State and Mr.C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant and Accused No.1 were classmates during their school days. It is alleged that, in the year 2016, Accused No.1 proposed marriage to the de facto complainant, which proposal was accepted by her. Believing the assurance held out by Accused No.1 that he would marry her, the de facto complainant left her parental home and started residing with him. It is further alleged that Accused No.2, the mother of Accused No.1, supported their relationship, provided them with separate accommodation, and assured the de facto complainant that the marriage would be solemnised after she attained majority. Relying upon such assurances, the de facto complainant entered into a physical relationship with Accused No.1.

It is further alleged that, during the period of their cohabitation, both the accused took control of the de facto complainant's earnings from social media, amounting to approximately Rs.50 lakhs, and compelled her to sell her gold ornaments and other personal belongings. According to the de facto complainant, whenever she insisted upon the marriage being solemnised, the accused kept postponing the same. It is alleged that, from January 2026 onwards, Accused No.1 refused to marry her, prevented her from entering the house, and threatened to kill her. The de facto complainant has also alleged that both the accused abused, assaulted, and criminally intimidated her and that Accused No.2, in particular, threatened her with a knife. On 17.04.2026, the accused allegedly sent the belongings of the de facto complainant to her mother's residence. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is contended that the relationship between Accused No.1 and the de facto complainant was purely consensual and continued for nearly ten years, and that there was never any promise of marriage or cohabitation in the manner alleged by the prosecution. It is further contended that Accused No.2 neither supported the relationship nor resided with the de facto complainant, as she was living separately.

Learned counsel further submits that the allegations relating to misappropriation of money, sale of gold ornaments and other personal belongings, assault, criminal intimidation, and refusal to marry are false, vague, and bereft of specific particulars, and were made only with an intention to harass the petitioners. It is also contended that the allegations contained in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences.

Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnish Singh alias Soni v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 197, learned counsel submits that, where the parties have been in a long-standing consensual relationship, the allegation that consent for a physical relationship was obtained solely on the basis of a false promise of marriage is ordinarily unsustainable. It is further submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, are permanent residents, and are willing to cooperate with the investigation. According to learned counsel, there is no likelihood of the petitioners absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. On these grounds, the petitioners seek the grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant submits that the allegations against the petitioners are grave and serious in nature, involving sexual exploitation on the basis of an alleged false promise of marriage, physical assault, criminal intimidation, and financial exploitation. It is specifically submitted that the de facto complainant has alleged that approximately Rs.50 lakhs earned by her through social media were misappropriated and that her gold ornaments and other personal belongings were also disposed of.

It is further submitted that custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary for a fair and effective investigation and that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may prejudice the investigation by affording the petitioners an opportunity to evade the investigative process or influence the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel also submits that the de facto complainant has already entered appearance in the connected quash proceedings. In view of the nature and gravity of the allegations, learned counsel accordingly prays for dismissal of the present petition.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposing the petition, submits that the investigation is still in progress, material evidence is being collected, and four witnesses have already been examined. It is contended that Accused No.1 induced the de facto complainant to cohabit with him on the alleged false promise of marriage, established a physical relationship with her, and subsequently refused to marry her. It is further submitted that both the accused allegedly abused, assaulted, and criminally intimidated the de facto complainant. According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant left her parental home believing the promise of marriage and thereafter cohabited with Accused No.1, while Accused No.2 allegedly supported the relationship and assured her that the marriage would be performed. It is the further case of the prosecution that, whenever the de facto complainant insisted upon the marriage being solemnised, the accused evaded the issue and that, from January 2026 onwards, Accused No.1 refused to marry her, prevented her from entering the house, and threatened her with dire consequences. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that, if anticipatory bail is granted at this stage, there is a possibility that the petitioners may not cooperate with the investigation, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and collection of material evidence. Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition.

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

The complaint itself discloses that the de facto complainant and Accused No.1 were admittedly in a relationship since 2016. Even according to the prosecution case, the relationship continued for nearly a decade. Further, the averments in the complaint do not indicate that the alleged promise of marriage was false from its inception or that Accused No.1 had no intention whatsoever of marrying the de facto complainant at the commencement of the relationship. Whether the subsequent refusal to marry amounts merely to a breach of promise or is of such a nature as to vitiate the consent on account of a misconception of fact are matters which require appreciation of the evidence collected during investigation and, if necessary, at the stage of trial.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that every breach of a promise to marry does not, by itself, constitute a criminal offence. To attract criminal liability on the ground that consent was obtained on a false promise of marriage, it must be shown that the promise was false at the very inception and was made in bad faith, with no intention of being honoured, solely for the purpose of obtaining the consent of the woman for a sexual relationship. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2019) 9 SCC 608, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that consent is vitiated where the promise of marriage was false from the outset and was made in bad faith, without any intention of being honoured. A similar principle has been reiterated in Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2025) 4 SCC 197.

In the present case, the petitioners have specifically denied the allegation that Accused No.1 made any false promise of marriage and have contended that the relationship between Accused No.1 and the de facto complainant was voluntary and consensual. They have also disputed the allegations relating to cohabitation, financial exploitation, assault, and criminal intimidation. The allegations concerning misappropriation of the de facto complainant's social media earnings, sale of her gold ornaments and other belongings, assault, and criminal intimidation are matters, which are yet to be established through investigation and evidence.

At this stage, while considering the prayer for anticipatory bail, this Court is not expected to undertake a detailed examination of the truthfulness of the rival allegations or embark upon a meticulous appreciation of the defence set up by the petitioners. The Court is required to consider the nature and gravity of the accusations, the material presently available, the specific role attributed to the petitioners, and the necessity, if any, of custodial interrogation, without entering into a detailed adjudication of disputed questions of fact.

It is a well-settled proposition of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, that the jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 482 of the BNSS, is intended to safeguard the personal liberty of an individual against unnecessary or unjustified arrest. While exercising such jurisdiction, the Court is required to consider, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the specific role attributed to the accused, the likelihood of the accused absconding, the possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing witnesses, and the genuine requirement, if any, of custodial interrogation.

In the present case, the prosecution has not placed any material before this Court to demonstrate that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is imperative for the purpose of a fair and effective investigation. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents, have permanent places of residence, and have expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Nothing has been brought on record, at this stage, to indicate a reasonable likelihood of the petitioners absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the petitioners may not cooperate with the investigation can, in the considered view of this Court, be adequately addressed by imposing appropriate conditions requiring their cooperation with the investigation.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 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.