K Charan Alias Kanugula Charan 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.6713 OF 2026 DATE : 05.05.2026 Between:

K.Charan @ anugula Charan ....Petitioner AND The State of Telangana & another .....Respondent/ Defacto complainant : ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.63 of 2025 of Siddapur Police Station, Nagarkurnool District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 65(1) r/w.49 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and under Section 5(1) r/w.6 of POCSO Act.

2.

The prosecution case is that the complainant mother of the victim girl lodged a complaint on 26.08.2025 alleging that A.1, Mudavath Thirupathi, had sexual relations with the victim on the false promise of marriage and repeatedly assaulted her. It is further alleged that on 14.05.2025, he called the victim to Mahabubnagar and sent the petitioner/A.2 to bring her from Achampet. Thereafter, A.1 allegedly forced himself on the victim and, when she became pregnant, procured tablets to terminate the pregnancy. The petitioner is alleged to have supported and persuaded the victim to consume the tablets. When the complainant questioned A.1, he allegedly abused and threatened them, leading to the present complaint. 3.

Heard Sri Ch.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State. 4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner is a first-year B.Sc. student pursuing Respiratory Pharmacology and that his acquaintance with A.1 was only limited and arose during college practical classes, as they were batchmates studying in different

streams. According to the petitioner, A.1 occasionally borrowed his mobile phone on the pretext of charging or signal issues, and the petitioner, acting in good faith, permitted the same without knowledge of any misuse. It is further submitted that the petitioner later came to know that A.1 had been using his phone to contact the victim girl. When the victim started repeatedly calling the petitioner's phone in search of A.1, the petitioner warned her not to call again, due to which she allegedly developed resentment and falsely implicated him in the case. It is also contended that petitioner also warned A.1 and distanced himself from him.

It is specifically contended that the petitioner had no knowledge whatsoever regarding any alleged pills said to have been used for termination of pregnancy, nor did he advise or assist the victim in that regard. The allegation that he took the victim on his motorcycle from Achampet to Mahabubnagar is also denied as false and fabricated. The learned counsel submits that there are no specific allegations in the FIR or remand report showing the petitioner's involvement, except vague and baseless accusations. It is further submitted that the petitioner belongs to a respectable family, has no criminal antecedents, and that his studies and future career have been seriously affected due to the apprehension of arrest.

The petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and shall abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The petitioner herein assisted A.1 in the alleged offence. As such, he is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and the material placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2. The allegation against him is that, despite knowing that the victim was a minor girl, he aided Accused No.1. However, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner which prima facie attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 5 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It appears that the petitioner has been implicated mainly on the ground that he is a friend of Accused No.1. It is also noted that Accused No.1 has already been arrested and the investigation has substantially been completed. Considering the allegations against the petitioner,

this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions :

i.

The petitioner shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Siddapur Police Station, Nagarkurnool District within two weeks from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release the petitioner on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, for the like sum each.

ii.

The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 05.00 p.m., on every Monday 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 other conditions stipulated in Section 482 (2) of BNSS and co-operate with the Investigating Officer in investigating the case. 7.

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

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 05.05.2026 Rds

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6713 OF 2026 Date: 05.05.2026 Rds