Mallepally Pranay Kumar 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.17069 of 2025 DATE: 24.12.2025 Between:
Mallepally Pranay Kumar .... Petitioner/accused AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, Through SHO, PS Marredpally, Secunderabad.
.... Respondent ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking enlargement on bail in Crime No.218 of 2025 of Marredpally, Secunderabad Police Station, Hyderabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 318(4), 352, r/w 3(5) of the BNS and Section 4 of the DP Act.
2.
The case of the prosecution is that, on 06.11.2025, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that the petitioner herein under the guise of marriage physically exploited the de-facto complainant.
On 04.04.2024, during the birthday function, she met the petitioner and she developed a physical relationship with him and they lived together for some time and later, the parents of the both the parties came to know about their relationship and thereafter, there is a negotiation of both parents for marriage of the de-facto complainant and the petitioner and the parents of the de-facto complainant agreed to give Rs.3,00,000/- as a dowry to the petitioner's parents and after fixing the marriage, the petitioner herein refused to marry the de-facto complainant. Hence, she requested for necessary action. Basing on the same, the police registered a case for the above said offences.
3.
Heard Sri Nimma Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the said allegations and in fact, both
of them got married and lived together and therefore, there is no such offence to constitute the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS and he is falsely implicated in this case and he is in jail since 11.11.2025 and the material part of the investigation was already completed and 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 against the petitioner are serious in nature, as such, he is not entitled for the bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.
6.
Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and the material on record, the petitioner herein is in jail since 11.11.2025 and as seen from the record, even according to the de-facto complainant, earlier they married and lived together. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the period of incarceration of petitioner in jail, 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), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of learned X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, at Secunderabad, Telangana.
ii.
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) weeks, for the purpose of investigation and thereafter, as and when required.
iii.
The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 483(2) of BNSS.
7.
Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 24.12.2025 TU
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17069 2025 Date:24.12.2025 TU