Balagangadhar Thilak Enja v. The State Of Telangana Through Ps Borabanda
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7088 of 2026 DATE: 06.05.2026 Between:
Balagangadhar Thilak Enja
...Petitioner/accused No.1
AND The State of Telangana, Through PS Borabanda, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, 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 No.1 in FIR No.76 of 2026 of Borabanda Police Station, Hyderabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 351(2) of the BNS and Section 5(I) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
- 2 - 2.
The case of the prosecution is that, on 05.02.2026, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that she resides with her parents at the mentioned address. In the year 2019, when she went to her grandmother's village, the petitioner herein told her that it was also his grandmother's village, and they became acquainted. That acquaintance gradually turned into love. He stated that he was working in Ameerpet and residing at Raj Nagar, Borabanda. In the year 2021, he brought her to his room at Raj Nagar, Borabanda, and, promising to marry me, had sexual intercourse with her. Believing his promise of marriage, he consented. After that, they had physical relations several times. Later, they had physical relations several times in his room at Prakash Nagar, Balkampet.
Her love affair with the petitioner was also known to his parents. However, in July 2025, petitioner became acquainted with another girl named Anjani Reddy and started distancing himself from her. In November 2025, when she went to his room at Balkampet, his parents were also present and they scolded her. After that, the petitioner asked her to give him some time and assured her that he would marry her. Later, she came to know that the petitioner had already married another woman. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action.
- 3 - registered a case for the offence under Section 69 and later, as the alleged offence was took place in the year 2021, on the date of offence, the victim was minor and they altered the section to above said offences.
3.
Heard Sri M. Sreekanth, 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 alleged offence took place in the year 2019 and the petitioner herein was also minor on the date of the alleged offence and he is in jail since 25.03.2026 and the material part of the investigation was already completed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to him by allowing this criminal petition. 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 the investigation is not yet completed, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for the bail. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
- 4 - 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 25.03.2026 and the allegations shows that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant were in relationship since 2019 and the petitioner herein refused to marry the victim, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the police, as he already married another woman. As seen from the remand case diary, the prosecution witnesses, LWs 1 to 14 have already been examined. 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 satisfaction of the learned XII Additional Sessions-cum-POCSO Judge, at Nampally, Hyderabad.
ii.
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every
- 5 - 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: 06.05.2026 TU
- 6 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7088 OF 2026 DATE : 06.05.2026 TU