Thupran Krishna v. The State Of Telangana Through Chaitanyapuri Police Station,
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9557 of 2026 DATE: 02.07.2026 Between:
Thupran Krishna .... Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Telangana, Through Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court, Hyderabad.
.... Respondent
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.665 of 2026 of Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Malkajgiri District. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
- 2 - 2.
The brief facts of the case are that, on 18.05.2026, the de-facto complainant lodged a report with the police stating that she is aged about 32 years and in the year 2020 she married Madhu Chary and they enjoyed their conjugal life for about one and half years. They did not have any children. Thereafter, her husband started consuming alcohol daily, stopped working, and regularly abused and assaulted her. About eight months ago, unable to bear her husband's harassment, she came to her mother's house and started residing there along with her elder brother. For the past two months, she has been working as a Telecaller at SRR Developers, Alkapur. About three months ago, she received a message on Instagram from the petitioner and used to chat with her every day.
During their conversations, he repeatedly told her that he liked her, would marry her and would solve all her problems. He further stated that since he was eventually going to marry her, they should meet in person. Believing his words, on 17.03.2026, he had sexually exploited her. Thereafter, he allegedly started threatening her over the phone, stating that she must come whenever and wherever he called her. Otherwise, he threatened to post all their Instagram messages on social media.
- 3 - police to take necessary action. Based on the said complaint, a case was registered against the petitioner for the above mentioned offence.
3.
Heard Sri E. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 4.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations and has been falsely implicated in the case and that the relationship between the petitioner and the de‐facto complainant was consensual in nature, therefore, the offence alleged under Section 69 of the BNS is not attracted and that even according to the complaint, the de-facto complainant is a married women and there is no question of marrying again by the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 25.05.2026 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
- 4 - counsel for the petitioner, contending that the allegations against the petitioner are heinous and grievous in nature and that the investigation is still in progress. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6.
In light of the submissions made by both 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 25.05.2026 and the record further reveals that the de-facto complainant is already married woman and there is no information in the complaint, whether de-facto complainant is divorced women. As per the remand case diary, prosecution witnesses LWs.1 to 12, including the investigating officer, have already been examined.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the stage of investigation and the duration of incarceration, this Court finds it appropriate 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
- 5 - the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy.
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).
7.
Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 02.07.2026 SS
- 6 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9557 OF 2026 DATE: 02.07.2026 SS