Narumalla Vijay @ Arjun, 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.17366 of 2025 DATE: 29.12.2025 BETWEEN:

Narumalla Vijay @ Arjun .....petitioner/accused And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

.....Respondent/complainant

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused in Crime No.1805 of 2025 of Pet Basheerabad Police Station,

Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant, a degree student, had been introduced to the accused Vijay @ Arjun through a mobile application seven months prior. They developed acquaintance and later met at Kompally on 06.10.2025, where the accused took her to an OYO hotel and engaged in sexual intercourse on the assurance of marriage. Subsequently, they met four more times at the same hotel. When she later insisted on marriage, the accused revealed that he had another girlfriend and refused. The complainant, along with her family, confronted him at his hostel, but he avoided them and later sent a message stating that his parents did not agree to the marriage and that he was leaving for Delhi, advising her to wait for five days.

3.

Heard Sri Y. Soma Srinath Reddy, 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 accused was falsely implicated as there was no allegation of force, threat, or coercion and that a mere promise of marriage did not amount to an offence unless shown to be false and dishonest from inception, which was absent in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner had no prior criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 14.11.2025, and the investigation was substantially completed, except filing of charge sheet. 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 bail stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious and heinous and nature. Further, the investigation was not yet completed. At this stage, granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6.

In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner is in jail since 14.11.2025. As seen from the record, the material part of the

investigation has been completed and L.Ws.01 to 15 witnesses have been examined.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the incarceration period of the petitioner, 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 of the IX Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Medchal, Cyberabad Commissionerate.

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: 29.12.2025 SAI

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17366 of 2025 Date: 29.12.2025 SAI