Komakula Arthan v. The State Of Telangana, Through Sho, P.S. Jubileehills
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7213 of 2026 DATE: 06.05.2026 Between:
Komakula Arthan .... Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Telangana, Through SHO, P.S. Jubilee Hills, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad.
.... Respondent
O R D E R
This criminal petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner/accused seeking enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No.186 of 2026 of Jubilee Hills Police Station. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
- 2 - 2.
The brief facts of the case are that, on 27.03.2026 , the de-facto complainant lodged a report with the police stating that in September 2021, she acquainted with the petitioner and the petitioner proposed her in December 2021, but she refused citing her family responsibilities; however, he continued to follow her to the hostel. In February 2022, they became friends, and due to his care and affection, she developed feelings for him. After about a month, he again proposed marriage, and upon her insistence that she would accept only if his intention was to marry and his parents agreed, he assured her that his parents would accept, stating that they themselves had a love marriage. Believing his assurance, she accepted his proposal.
In November 2022, he took a room where they began living together as husband and wife and physically exploited her on multiple occasions. They continued to live together for about four years, during which he repeatedly postponed the issue of marriage. When she contacted his mother, she stated that she was unaware of the relationship and asked her to stay away from her son. Thereafter, the petiitoner informed the complainant that he would not marry her and stopped responding to her calls. She had trusted him, spent approximately Rs.
- 3 - deceived by his false promise of marriage. Consequently, the complainant requested the police to take necessary action, and based on her complaint, a case was registered for the alleged offence. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 07.04.2026.
3.
Heard Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
4.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations and has been falsely implicated in the case and that the relationship between the petitioner and the de‐facto complainant was consensual, therefore, the offence alleged under Section 69 of the BNS is not attracted. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.04.2026 and that the crucial part of the investigation has already been completed. Hence, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.
- 4 - 5.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and grievous in nature and the investigation is still in progress. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6.
In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.04.2026. As per the remand case diary, prosecution witnesses LWs.1 to 17, including the investigating authority, have already been examined. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the stage of investigation, the relationship between the parties and the duration of incarceration, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner‐accused, subject to the following conditions:
i.
The petitioner-accused 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
- 5 - the learned XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.
ii.
The petitioner-accused shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.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-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: 06.05.2026 SS
- 6 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7213 OF 2026 DATE: 06.05.2026 SS