Konnela Dileep v. The State Of Telengana,
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.908 OF 2026 DATE :11.02.2026 Between :
Konnela Dileep ...
Petitioner/A.1 And The State of Telangana, Rep., by Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana ...
Respondent : ORDER :
This criminal petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner/A.1 seeking his enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No.336 of 2025 of Dharmasagar Police Station, Hanmakonda District.
The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1), 351(2), 296(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 5 (j)(ii)(1) r/w.6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
- 2 - 2.
The facts of the case are that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint on 07.11.2025 stating that in the year 2021, her family migrated from Jaganadhapuram of Elkathurthy Mandal to Narayanagiri Village and started residing at her grandmother's house. At that time, she was studying at the Government High School, Narayanagiri. In the year 2024, while she was studying 9th class, the petitioner followed her and proposed for marriage. In December 2024, after the death of his father, the accused shifted to a single-room house and, taking advantage of the situation, forcibly had sexual intercourse with the victim by threatening her. From January 2025 to March 2025, the accused continued to threaten the victim and repeatedly committed sexual intercourse.
In September 2025, the victim fell sick and upon medical examination, it was confirmed that she was six months pregnant and she informed her parents, who questioned the accused, but his mother Rajamma denied the incident and threatened the victim's family with dire consequences. On 01.11.2025, the victim delivered a male child at her house, later, she was shifted to the Government Maternity Hospital, Hanamkonda, where the doctors informed the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), and the newborn was handed over to them.
- 3 - requested the police to take severe action against the accused, basing on which, police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.
3.
Heard Sri P.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.
4.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relationship between the petitioner and the victim was consensual, and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner committed the offence under threat. He further contends that when the victim's parents are aware of her pregnancy at three months, they neither lodged a complaint with the police nor informed the elders. Instead, they provided medical care to safeguard the health of both the victim and the unborn child. During the sixth month of pregnancy, the parents approached the elders, and in the panchayat, the petitioner expressed his willingness to marry the victim. However, her family demanded that agricultural land be registered in the victim's name. When the petitioner agreed to transfer part of the land in her favour, the present complaint was lodged against him. It is further
- 4 - submitted that the entire investigation has been completed, and material witnesses have been examined, except for the filing of the charge sheet. The petitioner has been in custody since 26.11.2025, and the victim's statement under Section 183 of BNSS has also been recorded. Hence, prayed this Court for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.
5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the victim in this case is a minor girl and the petitioner under the pretext of love and marriage, lured her and had physical relationship with her several times, as a result, the victim became pregnant and gave birth to a baby boy. Hence, the offence committed by the petitioner is very heinous in nature, as such, petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.
6.
Having regard to the submissions made and the material placed on record, it is noted that petitioner is in jail from 26.11.2025 and the record shows that material part of investigation is completed, Lws.1 to 17 are examined and the statement of victim under Section 183 of BNSS is also recorded. Considering the progress in investigation and the period of
- 5 - incarceration of petitioner in jail, this Court deems it fit to grant regular bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions : i. The petitioner/A.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the I-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Hanmakonda.
ii. The petitioner/A.1 shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m., on every Wednesday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.
iii. The petitioner/A.1 shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 483(2) of the BNSS.
7.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :11.02.2026 Rds
- 6 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.908 OF 2026 DATE :11.02.2026 Rds