Rohit Kalla, v. The State Of Telangana Through P.S. Gopalapuram, Malkajgiri

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7618 of 2026 DATE: 12.06.2026 BETWEEN:

Rohit Kalla .....petitioner/accused And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad and another.

.....Respondent/complainant

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail who is arrayed as accused in Crime No.53 of 2026 before the Gopalapuram

Police Station, Malkajgiri District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 75 of BNS.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant and the petitioner became acquainted through a marriage proposal. On 06.03.2026, the petitioner allegedly met the de facto complainant at White Ridge Hotel, Secunderabad, and established a physical relationship with her on the promise of marriage. Subsequently, he allegedly refused to marry her stating that he had found a better match for dowry. Based on her complaint, a case in Crime No.53 of 2026 was registered by Gopalapuram Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 75 of the BNS. 3.

Heard Sri Pranay Sohini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachander Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations are false and motivated. He submitted that the parties were in a marriage alliance and that the proposal was later called off due to incompatibility and suppression of

material facts by the de facto complainant. He further submitted that no offence is made out, the case is based on documentary evidence, the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation, has no criminal antecedents, and there is no necessity for custodial interrogation. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the anticipatory bail application contending that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He submitted that the investigation is still in progress, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation, and there is a possibility of the petitioner influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence if granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/de facto complainant strongly opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner induced the de facto complainant to enter into a physical relationship on the false promise of marriage and later refused to marry her. He further submitted that the petitioner has made false and defamatory allegations against

the de facto complainant, suppressed material facts, and failed to cooperate with the investigation. He contended that the de facto complainant possesses supporting evidence and has a genuine apprehension that the petitioner may influence witnesses or threaten her if granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7.

In the light of the submissions made by both the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the dispute arises out of a failed marriage proposal and the subsequent allegations made by the de facto complainant. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he induced the de facto complainant to enter into a physical relationship on the promise of marriage and thereafter refused to marry her. The contention of the learned counsel for the de facto complainant is that the petitioner deliberately deceived the victim, exploited her under a false promise of marriage, and is attempting to evade the investigation. As seen from the record, the material part of the investigation is completed and L.Ws.1 to 19 have been examined. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: i.

The petitioner shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Gopalapuram Police Station, Kamareddy District, within two weeks from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release him on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/-, each with two sureties, for the like sum each.

ii.

The petitioner shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and co-operate with the Investigating Officer in investigating the case.

iii.

The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 09:00 a.m, and 05:00 p.m., for a period of eight

(8) weeks or till the filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier and thereafter, as and when required.

iv.

The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact, communicate with,

meet, approach, or attempt to contact the victim/de facto complainant or any of her family members, relatives, or witnesses in any manner whatsoever, including through phone calls, messages, social media platforms, electronic communication, or through third parties.

v.

In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail before the competent Court.

7.

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

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 12.06.2026 SAI

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7618 of 2026 Date: 12.06.2026 SAI