Banoth Naveen, 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.3999 of 2026 DATE: 23.03.2026 Between:
Banoth Naveen
...Petitioner/Accused
AND The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Pubic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana.
Hyderabad.
Through P.S.Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District (Malkajgiri Commissionerate).
.... Respondent
O R D E R
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner/Accused seeking to enlarge him on bail in connection with Crime No.308 of 2026 on the file of Hayathnagar Police Station, Vanasthalipuram, Malkajgiri, registered for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS.
- 2 - 2.
Heard Sri Veera Babu Gandu, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.
3.
The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 26.02.2026 at 21:00 hours before police, wherein she stated that the petitioner introduced her through snapchat and thereafter, the petitioner gained her trust by promising that he loved her and would marry her. The petitioner also assured her that he would convince both his parents and her parents for the marriage. Believing his assurance, the complainant went the petitioner's room where the petitioner used her physically continuously for three days and later left her stating that he would arrange a job for her. Whenever she contacted him he stated that there would be no marriage and told her to do whatever she wants. Hence, she requested the police to take necessary action against the said complaint. Basing on the same, police registered a case against the accused for the aforesaid offence.
- 3 - 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused would submit that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged against him and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that only to extract money from him, this case has been filed against him. The petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that L.Ws.1 to 9 were already examined and hence he requested the Court to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same and submits that the offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous and grievous in nature, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in this case, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail and hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties and perusal of the material on record, it appears that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 27.02.2026. As seen from the record, L.Ws.1 to 9 were already examined. Considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner and period of incarceration of petitioner
- 4 - in jail, this Court deems it fit to grant regular bail to the petitioner/accused subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner-Accused 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 learned XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar.
(ii) On such release, the petitioner-accused shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 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-Accused shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480 (3) of BNSS).
7.
Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 23.03.2026 YVL