Jim Elliot v. The State Of Telangana
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3049 OF 2026 DATE : 06.03.2026 Between :
Jim Elliot ...
Petitioner/Accused And The State of Telangana, Through S.R.Nagar Police Station, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court, Hyderabad ... Respondent : ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused in Crime No.05 of 2026 of S.R. Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 69, and 89 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 2.
The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a report before police on 03.01.2026 stating that she got acquaintance with the petitioner about three years ago and under the guise of marriage, the petitioner herein
sexually exploited her and when she got pregnancy and informed the same to petitioner, he gave some tablets due to which her pregnancy got aborted and subsequently, he refused to marry her on the ground that both of them belongs to different caste. The petitioner also took an amount of Rs.5 to 6 lakhs from her. Hence, requested the police for necessary action against the petitioner. Basing on the said complaint police registered the case against the petitioner for the above offences.
3.
Heard Sri E.Srinivas Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.
4.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the said allegations and whatever relationship between the petitioner and defacto complainant is a consensual relationship. There is no such promise of marriage by the petitioner and there is delay of three years in reporting the matter to the police. Petitioner is in jail from 06.01.2026 and that material part of investigation is already completed as such, further incarceration of petitioner is not required. Hence, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.
5.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the offence committed by the petitioner is heinous and serious in nature, that the investigation is not yet completed. Further, the medical evidence also supports the case of prosecution. Therefore, at this stage, petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.
6.
Having regard to the submissions made by both counsel and the material on record, the petitioner is in jail from 06.01.2026 and even according to the complainant, the petitioner and complainant are in relationship for the last three and half years. However, considering the allegations against the petitioner and the period of his incarceration, this Court deems it appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions :
i. The petitioner 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 III-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally.
ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 05.00 p.m., on every Wednesday for a period of eight (8) weeks, for the purpose of investigation or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier and thereafter, as and when required.
iii. The petitioner 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: 06.03.2026 Rds
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3049 OF 2026 Date:06.03.2026 Rds