Talakoti Madhav v. State Of Telangana, Through Sho, Ps, Ameenpur, Sangareddy District,
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8565 OF 2026 DATE : 18.06.2026 Between :
Talakoti Madhav S/o. Polaiah
...Petitioner/Accused
And The State of Telangana, Rep.byt its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State, of Telangana,Hyderabad, Through SHO PS Ameenpur Sangareddy District.
... Respondent Complainant
O R D E R
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner/Accused seeking to enlarge him on bail in connection with Crime No.127 of 2026 of Ameenpur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 318 (2), 318 (4) and 69 of the BNS Act. 2.
The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant lodged a report before police on 18.02.2026,
wherein it is stated that she was married about 15 years ago to one Dasarath, but due to marital disputes she has been living separately from him for the past four (4) years. It is stated that while she was working as watchwomen under construction apartment near Coca Cola company, she acquainted with the petitioner, who concealed the fact that he was already married, and falsely represented that he was unmarried and stating that he has been loving her. It is stated that she lived with the petitioner at Ameenpur as his wife for about four years and even the petitioner took her to his native village on several occasions and introduced her as his sister. It is stated that later she noticed changes in the behaviour of the petitioner questioned the same, he stated that he was already married and having two children.
Thereafter, disputes arose between them and the petitioner threatened her stating that he never married her and thereby cheated her by concealing existence of marriage and lived with her under false promise of marriage. Hence, she requested the police to take necessary action against the petitioner. Basing on the same, police registered a case against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.
3.
Heard Sri Kasireddy Mohan Chandra Has, learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.
4.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him; that the complaint filed by the complainant itself shows that she is a married person and there is no averment in the complainant that she has taken divorce from her first husband; that the relationship between the parties is consensual one; that there is no offence under Section 69 of the BNS Act; that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 25.04.2026 and hence, he prays this Court to grant regular bail to the petitioner. 5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same and submits that the offences alleged against the petitioner are heinous and grievous in nature; that investigation is not yet completed; that because of relationship of the petitioner, a male child was born to the complainant, and hence, the petitioner is
not grant of bail and hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 25.04.2026. As seen from the record, the victim was already married, but, living separately with her husband. There is no allegation in the report that she has taken divorce from her husband. That apart, the petitioner and the victim are living for the past four years. L.Ws.1 to 12 were examined including the Investigating Authority. Considering the nature allegation, period of incarceration and progress in investigation, this Court deems it fit 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 the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy. (ii) On such release, the petitioner-accused shall appear before the concerned S.H.O. between 09:00 a.m., and 5:00 p.m., on every Wednesday 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 BNSS). 7.
Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 18.06.2026 YVL