Mr. Ramchendar Adimulam Rao, 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.6976 of 2026 DATE: 04.05.2026 Between:
Mr. Ramchendar Adimulam Rao
...Petitioner/accused
AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Through the Inspector of Police, PS Nagole, High Court at Hyderabad.
.... 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 in FIR No.225 of 2026 of Nagole Police Station, Malkajgiri District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 115(2), and 351(2) of the BNS.
- 2 - 2.
The case of the prosecution is that, on 12.04.2026, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that initially she was introduced to the petitioner herein through the dating application "Tinder" for casual interaction. From the beginning, the complainant clearly informed him that she was not interested in any serious relationship or commitment due to her past experiences. However, he represented to her that he was a divorced person and assured complainant that he would stay with her for life. Believing his words, she agreed and they started living together in a live-in relationship from 01.10.2024. Thereafter, she became pregnant, but he allegedly forced her to consume pills, resulting in termination of the pregnancy. Later, the complainant came to know that he was not divorced and was still living with his wife.
Despite being ware of her past and assured her that he would not abandoned her. Whenever she sought clarity or a timeline, he allegedly abused her and man handled her. When the complainant attempted to inform his wife about the situation, he allegedly assaulted her again and created a public disturbance in her residential society by making false allegations and attempting to defame her character. Later, when she insisted him for marriage, he refused to marry her.
- 3 - necessary action. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case for the above said offences. 3.
Heard Sri K. Shiva Ganesh, 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 whatever the relationship between the parties is a consensual relationship and the petitioner and the de-facto complainant met each other through the dating application and they were in live-in relationship since 01.10.2024 and the alleged offence was took place about two years ago and the de-facto complainant has lodged a report after two years of the alleged incident and the delay itself shows that it is a false complaint. It is further submitted that there are three criminal cases pending against the de-facto complainant in her native state. It is further submitted that the material part of the investigation was already completed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to him by allowing this criminal petition.
- 4 - 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 and heinous in nature and though there is a past criminal history against the de-facto complainant, she already stated the same in her report itself, therefore, that is not the ground to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
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 in jail since 15.04.2026. As seen from the remand case diary, the prosecution witnesses, LWs 1 to 18 have already been examined. Further, since 01.10.2024, both the parties were in live-in relationship. 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
- 5 - satisfaction of the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, R.R District, at L.B. Nagar.
ii.
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.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: 04.05.2026 TU
- 6 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6976 OF 2026 DATE : 04.05.2026 TU