Neerati Vemanna, v. The State Of Telangana
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8399 OF 2026 DATE : 18.06.2026 Between:
Neerati Vemanna and two others.
...Petitioners
AND The State of Telangana rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another.
...Respondents
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.1 to 3 in FIR No.204 of 2026 on the file of Parigi Police Station, Vikarabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A, 376(2)(n), 506 r/w 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and 5(1) r/w 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act').
3.
Heard M/s. Koppula Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.
4.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that while the defactocomplainant/victim was 14 years old in the year 2014, the petitioner/accused No.1 enticed her and by taking her to fields committed sexual assault and continued the same by threatening her that any revelation would be ending humiliation of herself and family. This situation had continued and further promise of marriage on her attainment of 18 years age. Due to the threats and promise of marriage, the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 had sexually exploited her on several occasions at various places. During the occurrences at petitioner No.1/accused No.1's house, his elder sister and her husband/accused Nos.2 and deliberately supported the petitioner/accused No.1 in sexual exploitation. However after her attainment of majority when she asked the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 to marry as promised, he refused and when she approached the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, they visited her house and threatened her parents with dire consequences and abused all of them. Basing on the report, crime was registered.
5.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contest that the petitioner had reported the sexual abuse after 12 years of the incident
in the year 2014. The petitioners are no way concerned and the false and frivolous allegations are invented only to harass the petitioners. That apart by limitation and even otherwise the alleged sections of law would not attract to the averments of the complaint. Howsoever the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation and had no criminal antecedents and as they are apprehending arrest by the police prayed for granting of anticipatory bail and undertake to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court.
6.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the petition and pleaded that the petitioners earlier approached the trial Court, the petition has been dismissed on merits by considering the case against the petitioner and the investigation. He further submits that the witnesses were examined had categorically stated the involvement of the petitioners and exploitation of the defactocomplainant. Further as there are clear materials against the petitioners and granting anticipatory bail would cause prejudice to the prosecution case. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7.
I have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the material placed on record.
8.
A careful reading of the complaint and the material placed on record clearly indicates that the allegations are primarily directed
against petitioner No.1/accused No.1, who is alleged to have sexually exploited the victim/de facto complainant. Insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, it is alleged that they actively facilitated accused No.1 whenever the victim visited the house of petitioner No.1/accused No.1. It is further alleged that, when petitioner No.1/accused No.1 refused to marry, and when the de facto complainant approached petitioner Nos.2 and 3 seeking intervention, accused Nos.2 and 3 visited her house, threatened her, and abused her family members. 9.
Having considered these allegations in their entirety, the overt acts attributed to accused Nos.2 and 3, the nature of the offences alleged against them, and the specific allegations levelled against petitioner No.1/accused No.1, this Court is of the view that the prayer of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 for grant of pre-arrest bail, subject to certain conditions, is not objectionable. However, in view of the specific allegations against petitioner No.1, coupled with the gravity of the alleged offences and the role attributed to him therein, the prayer of petitioner No.1 for grant of pre-arrest bail is found to be unconvincing. 10.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.204 of 2026 of Parigi police station, Vikarabad, subject to the following conditions:
a) Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Parigi Police Station, Vikarabad District, on or before 02.07.2026. Upon such surrender, or in the event of their arrest, the Station House Officer shall release them on bail upon each of them executing 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 said officer.
b) The petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer every Saturday between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. for a period of eight (8) 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 proceedings before the trial court.
d) The petitioners shall neither directly nor indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall they tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
e) In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions by the petitioners, the prosecution shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps seeking cancellation of bail.
f) Upon any such breach, the Court below shall be at liberty to consider the prosecution's request for cancellation of bail on its own merits and in accordance with law.
11.
It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. ______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 18.06.2026 MRKR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8399 OF 2026 DATE : 18.06.2026 MRKR