Mamidipalli Anjanayya @ M. Anjaneyulu, 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.4925 of 2026 DATE: 16.04.2026 Between:

Mamidipalli Anjanayya @ M. Anjaveyulu and another

...Petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3

AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by Station House Officer, Shamirpet P.S., Malkajgiri District, Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

....Respondent/Complainant

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of prearrest bail to the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in FIR No.207 of 2026 of Shamirpet Police Station, Malkajgiri District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69,

- 2 - 352, r/w 3(5) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(V)(a) of the SC ST POA Act.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that, on 12.03.2026, the defacto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that, in the year 2020, she acquainted with A.1 and A.1 promised her that he will marry the de-facto complainant and under the guise of marriage, in the month of March, A.1 exploited her and thereafter, he promised her that he will definitely marry the de-facto complainant. Later, he went to Cyprus for work without informing the victim. When she questioned him about leaving without informing her, he told her that he would return in March 2026 and marry her, and even if the marriage did not happen immediately, he would come and speak with her family members. After going to Cyprus, for about two weeks he used to speak with her daily through video calls. Later he started avoiding her.

When the victim asked him about this, he said that he was busy with work and told her not to irritate him as he would return and marry her. Believing his words, the victim continued to wait. However, about 20 days ago, A.1 suddenly blocked the victim's mobile number and social media accounts. After waiting for two days, the victim went to A.1 house and asked his mother about him. His mother said that she did not know anything and asked her to leave. When the victim requested her to call A.

- 3 - to her mother. At that time, his parents treated the victim politely and told her that A.1 would return in March and that they would come to her house and conduct the marriage. Believing their words, the victim returned. However, since then, neither A.1 nor his family members have responded. When the victim called A.1 or his mother requesting them not to cheat her and to clarify the matter, there was no response. Even when the victim said that she might commit suicide, they did not respond. Whenever she tries to call A.1, he either blocks her number or abuses her in filthy language. Further, when A.1 parents asked about the victim's caste and came to know that she belongs to SC (Madiga) community, they told her that she belongs to a lower caste and that they would not allow the marriage. At another time, he demanded that if the victim gives him 1 crore, he would marry her. Hence, the complainant requested for necessary action. Basing on the said complainant, the police registered a case for the above said offences.

3.

Heard Sri E. Anjana Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Eswar Chander, learned counsel appearing for de-facto complainant as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

- 4 - 4.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no specific role of the petitioners herein and whatever the relationship existed between the de-facto complainant and A.1, the same was not informed to the petitioners herein and they never abused the de-facto complainant in the name of caste. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant opposed the bail petition by filing counter stating that there are clear allegations against accused Nos.2 and

3. It is further stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 denied the marriage of the de-facto complainant with accused No.1 solely only the ground of caste of de-facto complainant and they abused the de-facto complainant in the name of caste. Hences, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners stating that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature and the de-facto complainant was cheated by accused Nos.2 and 3 and accused Nos.2 and 3 also abused the de-facto complainant in the name of caste, as such, they are not entitled for

- 5 - anticipatory bail. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7.

In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioners herein are parents of A.1 and the role of the petitioners herein is that they refused to perform the marriage of A.1 with the de-facto complainant on the name of caste of the de-facto complainant and there is no such date of incident mentioned by the de-facto complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the nature of the allegations against the petitioners herein, this Court deems it fit to grant prearrest bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: i.

The petitioners shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Shamirpet Police Station, Malkajgiri District, within two weeks from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release them on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- each, with two sureties, for the like sum each.

ii.

The petitioners shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482(2) of

- 6 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and co-operate with the Investigating Officer in investigating the case.

iii.

The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer on every Monday between 09:00 a.m, and 05:00 p.m., for a period of 8 weeks or till the filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier, and thereafter, as and when required.

8.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 16.04.2026 TU

- 7 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4925 OF 2026 DATE : 16.04.2026 TU