Yemmani Prasanna Kumar, v. The State Of Telangana, Through Station House Officer,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17275 of 2025 DATE: 24.12.2025 BETWEEN:

Yemmani Prasanna Kumar .....petitioner/accused No.1 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

.....Respondent/complainant

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.1167 of 2025 before the Madhapur

Police Station, Cyberabad Coimmissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Section 69 and 351(2) of BNS. 2.

The brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2025 at about 1600 hours, the de-facto complainant, Miss Surbhi Raj, and working as a Program Manager at Amazon, submitted a written complaint before the police stating that she had been in a relationship with one Prasanna Kumar since 2016, whom she met at her workplace. She alleged that during the course of their relationship, the accused maintained a sexual relationship with her on the promise of marriage after his sister's marriage. It was stated that after his sister's marriage on 16.02.2025, the accused instead married another woman, Pravallika Chinta, in March 2025, thereby cheating the complainant.

The complainant further alleged that the accused sexually assaulted her, last had physical relations with her on 01.01.2025 at Novotel Hotel, and thereafter threatened her and her family. It was also alleged that on 22.04.2025, the accused shared her intimate photographs with her father and threatened to file a false case against her.

3.

Heard Sri P. N. Dayakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the essential ingredients of Section 69 of the BNS were not attracted, as the relationship was consensual, long-term, and not induced by any false promise of marriage, which the complainant herself had denied in her earlier written admissions and that the complainant's subsisting marriage rendered any alleged promise of marriage legally untenable, and that the allegations of criminal intimidation under Section 351(2) BNS were vague and unsupported. He further submitted that the complaint was a misuse of the criminal process, filed after inordinate delay and motivated by personal vendetta, particularly after the petitioner's marriage and overseas employment. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest 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 petitioners stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are serious and henious in nature. Further, the investigation was not yet completed. Therefore, at this stage,

granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 6.

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the principal allegation against the petitioner is that he had sexual relations with the de-facto complainant on the alleged false promise of marriage and thereafter subjected her and her family to threats. Taking into account the nature of the allegations, the long-standing and admittedly consensual relationship between the parties, the documentary material placed on record, and the fact that custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not appear to be imperative at this stage of the investigation, this Court deems it fit and proper to grant prearrest bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: i.

The petitioner shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad, within two weeks from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release him on bail on executing a personal bond

for Rs.25,000/-, each, 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, 2023 and co-operate with the Investigating Officer in investigating the case.

iii.

The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer on every Monday between 09:00 a.m, and 05:00 p.m., for a period of eight (8) weeks or till the filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier and thereafter, as and when required.

iv.

The petitioner shall not contact, threaten, influence, or attempt to influence the defacto complainant or any prosecution witness, directly or indirectly, in any manner.

v.

The petitioner shall not leave the limits of Hyderabad without prior permission of the Investigating Officer.

vi.

The petitioner shall furnish his mobile number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same active and updated at all times.

vii.

The petitioner shall not commit any offence of like nature during the pendency of the case.

viii.

In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, it shall be open to the Investigating Officer/Prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.

7.

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

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 24.12.2025 SAI

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17275 of 2025 ` Date: 24.12.2025 SAI