Sri. Thokala Srinivas, v. The State Of Telangana,
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8587 of 2026 DATE: 19.06.2026 Between:
Sri Thokala Srinivas .... Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another .... Respondents/Victim
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.669 of 2026 of L.B. Nagar Police Station, Malkajgiri District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 69 and 75 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
- 2 - 2.
The brief facts of the case are that, on 10.05.2026, the de-facto complainant lodged a report with the police stating that she married one Pandrala Venkatesh on 06.01.2020. Owing to matrimonial disputes, she and her husband had been living separately since the year 2023. During that period, she became acquainted with the petitioner, who is a friend of her husband. Thereafter, the petitioner developed a close relationship with the complainant, established intimacy with her, and allegedly had sexual intercourse with her from January 2025 onwards. It is further alleged that by making deceitful promises of love and false assurances of marriage, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions at various places in Hyderabad.
Whenever she questioned the petitioner regarding marriage, he began avoiding her, stating that his parents would not accept their marriage. It is also alleged that he harassed her by repeatedly calling her and insisting on sexual intercourse. Consequently, the complainant requested the police to take necessary action, and based on her complaint, a case was registered for the alleged offence.
- 3 - 3.
Heard Sri J. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/de-facto complainant/victim.
4.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations levelled against him and has been falsely implicated in the case and that the relationship between the petitioner and the de‐facto complainant was consensual and that there was neither any force nor any promise of marriage. He further submitted that apart from the above, there was no divorce in respect of the de-facto complainant at the time when the alleged relationship commenced and that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 14.05.2026 and that the crucial part of the investigation has already been completed. Hence, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.
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
- 4 - the investigation is still in progress. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there are several photographs and videos stored in the mobile phone of the petitioner and that the police have not yet recovered the same. He further contended that, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is a likelihood of his sharing the said photographs and videos with others, thereby causing prejudice to the de-facto complainant. Therefore, he prayed that this Court dismiss the present criminal petition. 7.
In light of the submissions made by 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 14.06.2026. As per the remand case diary, prosecution witnesses LWs.1 to 14, 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:
- 5 - 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 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
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).
iv.
The petitioner-accused and his relatives shall not contact, threaten, intimidate or otherwise interfere with the victim or her relatives.
- 6 - v.
The petitioner/accused shall not share, circulate, publish, transmit, or disclose any photographs or videos of the victim, if in his possession, to any person whatsoever.
8.
Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 19.06.2026 SS
- 7 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8587 OF 2026 DATE: 19.06.2026 SS