Gadipally Manoj 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.6668 of 2026 DATE: 30.04.2026 Between:
Gadipally Manoj Kumar S/o G. Rajender Kumar .... Petitioner/ Accused AND The State of Telangana, Rep by the Public Prosecutor, Through SHO P.S. S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad.
.... 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.150 of 2026 of S.R.Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 69 of the BNS. 2.
The brief facts of the case are that on 13.06.2026, at about 23:25 hours, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that she had become acquainted with the petitioner/accused, who promised to
- 2 - marry her. Thereafter, on several occasions he had sexual relations with her on the pretext of marriage, as a result of which she became pregnant. Subsequently, he took her to a hospital for an abortion. At that time, she requested him to marry her but he postponed the same. Hence, she approached the police and requested them to take necessary action on her complaint. Based on the said report, the police registered a case against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.
3.
Heard Sri M.N. Narsimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.
4.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused is that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him. Even according to the prosecution, as on the date of the acquaintance of the petitioner, the de-facto complainant was already married, therefore, there is no question of marrying her again during subsistence of earlier does not arise. He further submits that material part of the investigation completed; that the
- 3 - petitioner has been in judicial custody from 14.03.2026 and hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner. 5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same and submits that the offences alleged against the petitioner are grievous and heinous in nature and hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6.
Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner has been in judicial custody from 14.03.2026. Considering allegation against the petitioner and taking into consideration the period of incarceration of petitioner in jail and consideration of statements of L.Ws.1 to 13 were already examined, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner/Accused subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner-accused shall execute 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 III ACMM at Hyderabad.
(ii) On such release, the petitioner-accused shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) week or
- 4 - 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 the BNSS).
7.
Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 30.04.2026 FM
- 5 - THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6668 of 2026 DATE: 30.04.2026 FM