Batta Gagan Kumar, 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.5272 of 2026 DATE: 13.04.2026 Between:
Batta Gagan Kumar
...Petitioner/accused No.1
AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, Through PS Golconda.
.... Respondent/Complainant
O R D E R
This Criminal Petition is filed before this Court for grant of bail to the Petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in FIR No.102 of 2026 of Golconda Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1) and 109(1) of the BNS.
- 2 - 2.
The case of the prosecution is that, on 06.03.2026, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that she was married in 2015, but after five months of marriage, she separated from her husband. In 2016, she became acquainted with the petitioner herein. He promised to marry her and brought her to Hyderabad in 2018, and they were in a live-in relationship for two years. Due to his extra-marital and illegal affairs, she distanced herself from him. In 2020, he married another woman. After a few days of his marriage, he contacted her again, pressuring her to marry him, and threatened to circulate private photos taken during their relationship. When she refused, the petitioner herein, along with his friend Arun, allegedly attempted to kill her.
Since then, he has been intimidating her, blackmailing her with nude photos, and forcibly having sexual intercourse with her. When she threatened to approach the police, he allegedly circulated her private photos to her friends and deleted the originals. He has also threatened to kill her and her family. The victim further stated that as a result of the forcible sexual acts, she became pregnant. On 09.02.
- 3 - pills to induce abortion. She reported that his mother Sampoorna, father Jayaramaiah, and wife Laxmi have been supporting his actions. For the past two years, he has been forcing her to visit his residence near Shaikpet, claiming she is his wife, and continued to have sexual intercourse with her forcibly. Since January 2026, when he shifted to Pragathi Nagar, he has been compelling her to maintain the relationship. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action. Basing on the same, the police registered a case for the above said offences.
3.
Heard Sri G.
Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the said allegations and he is falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that, according to the de-facto complainant, she is a married woman and she married in the year 2015 and she is in live-in relationship with the petitioner herein for a
- 4 - long time till 2020 and there is no such complaint filed by her from 2024 to 2026 and though the petitioner herein forcefully committed physical relationship with the de-facto complainant, the delay itself shows that the complaint is false in nature and the petitioner is in jail since 08.03.2026 and the material part of the investigation was already completed. It is further submitted that though four cases are registered against the petitioner herein, out of 4 cases, in 3 cases, he is already acquitted and only 1 case is pending against the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to him by allowing this criminal petition.
5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations against the petitioner herein are serious in nature and the investigation is not yet completed and PT is yet to be conducted, as such, he is not entitled for the bail. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
- 5 - 6.
In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner herein is accused No.1 and he is in jail since 08.03.2026 and as seen from the record, the petitioner and the de-facto complainant were in relationship from 2018 and since then, no complaint is filed by the de-facto complainant against the petitioner. As seen from the remand case diary, the prosecution witnesses, LWs 1 to 15 have already been examined. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, the duration of incarceration, this Court finds it appropriate to grant 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 learned X Additional Session
- 6 - Judge, Hyderabad District, at Hyderabad.
ii.
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday 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 shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).
7.
Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 13.04.2026 TU
- 7 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5272 OF 2026 DATE : 13.04.2026 TU