Kranthi Kiran Pillitla,A v. The State Of Telangana Through P.S. Dubbak,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8745 OF 2026 DATE : 29.06.2026 Between:

Kranthi Kiran Pillitla

...Petitioner/Accused

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 petitioner is arrayed as the sole accused in FIR No.161 of 2026 on the file of Dubbak Police Station, Siddipet District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNS").

3.

Heard Mr.Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mahmood, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

4.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.06.2026, the de facto complainant lodged the present complaint alleging that, in the year 2019, while she was pursuing her graduation, she became acquainted with the petitioner, who was employed as an IT professional and was residing at Siddipet. It is alleged that the petitioner induced her into a relationship on the false promise of love and marriage and thereafter took her to Hyderabad, where he kept her in a room for a period of about nine months and subjected her to physical exploitation. According to the complainant, she consented to such acts solely because she reposed trust in the petitioner's assurances and deceptive promises of marriage. It is further alleged that, subsequently, the petitioner developed a relationship with another woman, began avoiding the complainant, and ultimately informed her that he would not marry her. On the basis of these allegations, the present crime was registered against the petitioner for the offences alleged.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is contended that the complaint does not disclose the specific dates, times, or places where the alleged incidents are stated to have occurred. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was never in a relationship with the complainant and, on the contrary, it was the complainant who had been harassing him by insisting that he marry her. It

is further contended that on 16.05.2026, at the instance of the complainant's family members, the police summoned the petitioner to the police station and compelled him to sign papers relating to his proposed marriage with the complainant on 05.06.2026. However, according to the petitioner, he had already lodged a complaint on 02.06.2026 before the Commissioner of Police, Siddipet, requesting appropriate action in the matter. It is also submitted that, after 05.06.2026, the petitioner received threatening calls from the complainant's family members demanding that he perform the marriage, and thereafter the present complaint came to be lodged on 09.06.2026. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate fully with the Investigating Agency, produce all relevant documents, and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 6.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application, contending that the allegations in the complaint are specific insofar as they attribute to the petitioner the acts of developing an acquaintance with the de facto complainant, inducing her with a promise of marriage, taking her to Hyderabad, and subjecting her to physical exploitation for a period of about nine months. It is further submitted that the investigation is at a nascent stage and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required for the purpose of a fair and effective investigation. Accordingly, it is prayed that the application be dismissed.

7.

I have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.

8.

A perusal of the complaint discloses that the allegations pertain to the year 2019. Although the complainant alleges that the petitioner took her to Hyderabad and kept her in a room for a period of about nine months, the complaint does not disclose the approximate timeline, specific locations or other material particulars concerning the alleged occurrence. At the same time, the petitioner has taken a specific defence that no such relationship ever existed and has placed reliance upon his representation dated 02.06.2026, allegedly submitted to the Commissioner of Police, Siddipet, prior to the registration of the present crime, complaining of coercion and threats. The respondent-prosecution also does not dispute that the said representation was received in the inward section of the office of the Commissioner of Police on 02.06.2026, though it is stated that no action was taken thereon.

9.

Whether the allegations in the complaint are ultimately established or whether the defence projected by the petitioner is worthy of acceptance are questions that cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Nevertheless, the existence of the prior representation, the nature of the allegations, fair investigation and the circumstances warranting custodial intorrogation deserve due consideration while examining the prayer for anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, it is well settled that anticipatory bail is intended to safeguard the liberty of an individual against unnecessary arrest while ensuring that the investigation is not impeded. The power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary in nature but is to be exercised judiciously depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 10.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, particularly the nature of the allegations, the absence of specific particulars regarding the alleged occurrences, the petitioner's prior representation dated 02.06.2026, which admittedly remained unattended, the absence of any material placed before this Court to indicate that the petitioner is likely to abscond or interfere with the investigation, and the categorical undertaking given by him to cooperate with the Investigating Agency, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 11.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the petitioner shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper to impose in the interest of a fair and unhindered investigation.

(A) The petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Dubbak Police Station, Siddipet District on or before 13.07.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station

House Officer shall release him 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 petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer on Tuesday and Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of his release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects. (C) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation. (D) The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (E) The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (F) Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings before the court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable 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: 29.06.2026 CHS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8745 OF 2026 DATE : 29.06.2026 CHS