Rajapeta Raja Alias Rajesh Goud 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. 15608 of 2025 DATE: 01.12.2025 Between:

Rajapeta Raja @ Rajesh Goud .... Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Through P.S. Choutuppal, Rachakonda District. .... Respondent/Complainant

O R D E R

The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS praying this Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.815 of 2025 before Choutuppal Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 351(2) of BNS.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that, on 21.11.2025, the de facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that she has been acquainted with the petitioner for the past four years. Under the guise of marriage, the petitioner physically exploited her. For the past 20 days, however, the petitioner has been avoiding her and has stated that he will not marry her. His family members have also advised him not to marry her and asked him to stay away from her. On 19.11.2025, the petitioner's aunt and grandmother came to her house, threatened them, and declared that the petitioner would not marry her. Hence, she requested the Police for necessary action. Based on this complaint, the police registered a case against the accused for the alleged offences. 3.

Heard Smt. Borra Lakshmi Kanakavalli, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the case and that the de-facto complainant, who was working as a nurse in Sai Jyothi Hospital, had demanded some amount from the petitioner. They had been neighbours, in fact. She further

submitted that the de-facto complainant was a major, whatever relationship existed between the parties was a consensual one, and no offence had been committed by the petitioner, as there had been a long-standing relationship between them, the custodial interrogation was not warranted. Therefore, she prayed the Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition. 5.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that under the guise of marriage, petitioner had exploited de-facto complainant physically. He further submitted that the investigation was still at an initial stage, that the allegations against the petitioner were serious in nature, and that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation. Hence, he prayed that the Court dismiss the criminal petition.

6.

Having regard to the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it was noted that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant had been in a relationship for the past four years, and the allegations

indicated that he had only avoided her for the past one month. In view of the long-standing relationship between the parties and the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not warranted and deemed it appropriate to grant pre‐arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to compliance with the following conditions:

i.

The petitioner shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Choutuppal Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate within two weeks from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release petitioner on bail, on their executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties, for the like sum each.

ii.

The petitioner shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and co-operate with Investigating Officer in investigating the case.

iii.

The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 09:00 a.m, and 05:00 p.m., till the filing of the charge sheet and thereafter, as and when required.

7.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 01.12.2025 SS

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15608 of 2025 Date: 01.12.2025 ss