Aruvanti Abhinay 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.5310 of 2026 DATE: 24.04.2026 BETWEEN:
Aruvanti Abhinay, S/o. Aruvanti Veera Sekhar .....petitioner/accused No.1 And The State of Telangana, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana and another .....Respondent/Prosecution
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.449 of 2026 before the P.S. L.B.Nagar, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 69, 351(2), 352 of BNS and 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 2015.
2.
The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 31.03.2026 stating that on 06.01.2026, the de facto complainant visited Cult fit center in Vanasthalipuram for physical exercise. At that time, the de facto complainant met the petitioner. The petitioner developed relationship with her under the guise of love and instilled a belief in her that the petitioner would marry her and gave her assurance to that effect. Trusting the petitioner's words, the de facto complainant consented to the relationship. Both were lived together for a period of 24 days. Thereafter, when the de facto complainant asked the petitioner about their marriage, the petitioner insulted her by referring to her caste and refused to marry her. Further, the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- from the de facto complainant under the pretext of performing the marriage of his sister. Based on the said complaint, F.I.R.No.449 of 2026 was registered for the above said offences.
3.
Heard Sri Pasham Ravindra Reddy, appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachander Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner is innocent. The petitioner is falsely implicated in the above case by the prosecution and is no way concerned with the alleged offence. The de facto complainant has the habit of registering the case against innocent persons. Earlier also, on the same set of allegations, an F.I.R.No.1413 of 2025 was registered against one M.Gopi Krishna Chowdhary on the file of P.S. Rajendranagar for the offences under Sections 69, 351(2) of BNS and 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC & ST (POA) Act. Only with an intention to extract the money from the petitioner, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the present petitioner. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.
5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, submitting that the allegations against
the petitioner are grave in nature and on instructions of Station House Officer, P.S. L.B.Nagar, would submit that on 13.04.2026, this Court has issued serving of notice to the complainant in the aforesaid crime on the file P.S. L.B.Nagar, but the notice could not be served to the complainant, as she was not available in the address mentioned in the complaint and her whereabouts were also not known. However, he would submit that, as the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6.
Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 and that the contents of the complaint disclose that the petitioner and the de facto complainant were admittedly acquainted with each other. It is also evident that, within a short span of time, the de facto complainant is alleged to have paid an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the petitioner on the pretext of performing his sister's marriage and that both of them are stated to have lived together for about 24 days. Further, the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner with regard to the de facto complainant having earlier lodged a similar complainant on the same allegations is also placed on record. In the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that the petitioner and the de facto complainant both are majors, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
i.
The petitioner shall surrender before the Station House Officer, P.S.
L.B.Nagar, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, within two weeks from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release him on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/-, each with two sureties, for the like sum each.
ii.
The petitioner shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and co-operate with the Investigating Officer in investigating the case.
iii.
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 09:00 a.m, and 05:00 p.m., for a period of eight
(8) weeks or till the filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier and thereafter, as and when required.
7.
Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 24.04.2026 Nsk
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5310 of 2026 Date: 24.04.2026 Nsk