Karee Annapurna v. The State Of Telangana, Through Ps Gachibowli,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8252 OF 2026 DATE : 17.06.2026 Between:

Karee Annapurna and Others

...Petitioners

AND The State of Telangana

...Respondent

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

2.

The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime No.975 of 2026 on the file of Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 79, 36(2), 318(4), 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNS"). 3.

Heard Mr. Brahmadandi Ramesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Vivekananda Reddy, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State. 4.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that a complaint dated 29.05.2026 was lodged by the de facto complainant alleging that accused No.1 had

developed acquaintance with her and, on the pretext of marrying her, established a relationship, allegedly exploiting her and obtaining financial benefits from her. It is further alleged that the present petitioners supported accused No.1 and that, when the de facto complainant approached them seeking intervention with regard to the proposed marriage and settlement of the amounts allegedly due to her, the petitioners abused, threatened, and subsequently blocked her telephone calls. On the basis of the said complaint, the present crime came to be registered.

5.1.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations contained in the complaint do not disclose any specific overt acts attributable to the petitioners warranting their implication in the crime. It is contended that, much prior to the registration of the present case, a legal notice dated 27.11.2025 was issued to the de facto complainant, wherein she had, inter alia, sought repayment of certain amounts, a written apology, a direction restraining accused No.1 from contacting her, deletion of photographs, videos, and other electronic records, and an undertaking not to disseminate defamatory statements against her. Significantly, according to the learned counsel, the said legal notice does not contain any allegation regarding physical intimacy or sexual exploitation by accused No.1.

It is further submitted that the legal notice was addressed exclusively to accused No.1, to which an appropriate reply was also furnished.

embellishment and are particularly unsustainable insofar as the present petitioners are concerned.

5.2.

It is further contend that except for a vague allegation that the petitioners supported accused No.1 and declined to accede to the demands made by the de facto complainant regarding marriage and financial settlement, there are no specific allegations demonstrating their participation in the commission of any cognizable offence. It is submitted that criminal liability cannot ordinarily be fastened on a person in the absence of specific allegations disclosing his or her active involvement in the alleged occurrence. The petitioners undertake to cooperate with the investigation, to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required, and to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks the grant of anticipatory bail. 6.

Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that the investigation is still at a nascent stage and that the involvement of the petitioners surfaced during the course of investigation, consequent upon which they were arrayed as accused in the case. He submits that the allegations against the petitioners pertain to their conduct and response when the de facto complainant approached them in relation to the proposed marriage and the alleged financial transactions between her and accused No.1. According to the prosecution, the veracity and extent of

their involvement can be ascertained only upon completion of a thorough investigation. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is sought. 7.

I have careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.

8.

The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that even if the averments contained in the complaint and the police report are accepted at their face value, they do not disclose any specific role or overt act attributable to the petitioners. A perusal of the complaint reveals that the petitioners are referred to primarily in the context of certain amounts allegedly transferred by accused No.1 to their bank accounts in instalments and in relation to the business and financial dealings said to have existed between the de facto complainant and accused No.1. The complaint further alleges that, when the de facto complainant approached the petitioners seeking settlement of the financial transactions, they sided with accused No.1 and declined to support her claim.

9.

At this stage, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidentiary value of the allegations or adjudicate upon their truthfulness. Nevertheless, for the limited purpose of considering an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court is required to assess whether custodial interrogation of the petitioners is indispensable for a fair and effective investigation.

10.

Having regard to the nature and depth of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the stage at which the investigation presently stands, and the material placed before this Court, no specific circumstance is brought on record demonstrating the necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioners. The investigation can effectively proceed with their cooperation, particularly when they have unequivocally expressed their willingness to participate in the investigation and comply with any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. There is also no material to indicate that the petitioners are likely to abscond, evade the process of law, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses.

11.

Having regard to these aspects especially nature of the allegations against the petitioners, the absence of any specific material demonstrating the necessity of custodial interrogation, the willingness of the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, subject to appropriate conditions.

12.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioners shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions: (A) The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad, on or before 02.07.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest, the Station House Officer shall release them on bail on execution of a

personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer.

(B) The petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer every Saturday between 09:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. for a period of ten

(10) weeks from the date of their release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects.

(C) The petitioners shall furnish their complete residential addresses and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation. (D) The petitioners shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall they tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. ______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date : 17.06.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8252 OF 2026 DATE : 17.06.2026 CHS