Koneri Sai Kiran v. The State Of Telangana
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10976 of 2025 Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused in Crime No.1480 of 2025 of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed.
2.
The brief facts of the case are that, de-facto complainant lodged a report before the Police stating that she got married to one Durga Prasad in March, 2005 and they had a daughter. However, due to issues, they got divorced in the year 2006 in the presence of elders. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant entered the film and television industry as an anchor and artist and later, she got acquainted with the petitioner in the year 2024, April. The petitioner made her to believe that he would marry her and both of them had physical intimacy. The de-facto complainant, trusting the petitioner, had transferred Rs.5 lakhs to 6 lakhs through bank transactions and Rs.10 to 12 lakhs cash and also gave XUV700 car to the petitioner as gift in September 2024 and she is paying the EMI for
car. The de-facto complainant became pregnant in February, 2025 and later, the petitioner refused to marry her. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case vide Crime No.1480 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS').
3.
Heard Sri Y. Hema Chander, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was innocent of the alleged offence and that the de-facto complainant was approximately 36 years of age and that there had been no promise of marriage made to her. He further submitted that the de-facto complainant had already married one Durga Prasad in March 2005, and there had been no legal divorce between the de-facto complainant and her husband, Durga Prasad and that a legal divorce in a
Court of Law was required before she could seek marriage with another man, as such the complaint was alleged to be illegal and not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner had refused to marry the de-facto complainant. He further contended that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since 05.08.2025 and that part of investigation is also completed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.
5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. The investigation was not yet completed and they have recorded statements of 10 witnesses only. At this stage, granting of bail to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6.
In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material
available on record, it appears that the de-facto complainant was already got married to one Durga Prasad and after divorce only, the petitioner and the de-facto complainant were in physical relationship since 2024 and she got pregnant in February, 2025 and the complaint was lodged in the month of July, 2025 and the petitioner is in judicial custody since 05.08.2025. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as the part of the investigation is completed and as the 10 witnesses were examined, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
i.
The petitioner shall execute 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 learned XIII Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
R.R.District at Rajendra Nagar, R.R.District.
ii.
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) week or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.
iii.
The petitioner 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 applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 02.09.2025 TU
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10976 of 2025 Date: 02.09.2025 TU