Mallevar Krishna v. The State of Telangana
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 16 Apr 2026
- Bench
- K SUJANA
Outcome
Bail granted
the petitioner is released on bail there is every chance of
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ss. 480, 480(3), 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 62(2)(j), 64(2)(m), 65(1), 137(2), 183, 351(3)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ss. 5, 6
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 437(3)
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 16.04.2026 YVL
Judgment
O R D E R This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner/Accused seeking to enlarge him on bail in connection with Crime No.703 of 2025 of Allapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 64 (2) (m), 62 (2)(j), 65 (1), 351 (3) of the BNS, Section 5 read with 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The case of the prosecution is that on 31.12.2025, the complainant came to the police station and lodged a complaint. Basing on the contents of the complaint, originally - 2 - police registered a case under Section 137 (2) of the BNS. Subsequently, after investigation, police registered a case under Sections 64 (2) (m), 62 (2)(j), 65 (1), 351 (3) of the BNS, Section 5 read with 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. On 30.12.2025 the complainant came to the police around 18:00 hours stating that the victim girl went from home without intimating to anyone and did not return to home till now. The complainant searched for her in the surrounding places and relatives house. But she could not find her daughter identity. The complainant is suspecting one person by name Vasanth Kumar, with whom, the victim went three times from the house. It is further stated that after investigation, the respondent came to know that the petitioner herein is known to the complainant and also victim. The petitioner committed rape on the victim, who is a minor. Hence, requested the police to take necessary action against the petitioner. Basing on the same, police registered a case for the aforesaid offences.
Heard Sri T.P.Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, - 3 - learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.
The contention of learned counsel petitioner/Accused is that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him; that due to disputes between the mother of the victim and the petitioner, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner; that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.01.2026; that material part of the investigation is completed; that statement of victim under Section 183 of the BNS has already been recorded and hence, he prays this Court to grant regular bail to the petitioner- accused.
Operative part
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same and submits that the offences alleged against the petitioner are serious and heinous in nature; that the petitioner is in physical relationship with mother of the victim girl and he used to go to the house of the victim and used to commit rape on the victim. Therefore, if the petitioner is released on bail there is every chance of threatening the victim as well as the witnesses and hence, he requested the Court to dismiss the petition. - 4 -
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties and perusal of the material on record, it shows that initially complaint was registered basing on the statement of the complainant that victim went from the house without intimating to the complainant. Previously also, the victim went from house without intimating to the complainant and she stayed three days with one Vasanth Kumar, whereas the remand report shows that the petitioner herein committed rape on the victim. Considering the allegation against the petitioner and that he has been in judicial custody since
21.01.2026 and further the record shows that L.Ws.1 to L.W.18 were already examined and statement of victim under Section 183 of BNS was already examined. Considering period of incarceration of the petitioner in judicial custody from 21.01.2026 this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner/Accused subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner-accused shall execute 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 the learned I Additional Junior Judge-cum-XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal Malkajigir District at Kukatpally. (ii) On such release, the petitioner-accused shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09:00 - 5 - a.m., and 5:00 p.m., on every Wednesday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required. (iii) After release, the petitioner shall not contact the complainant and victim and if he tries to contact the complainant and victim, the respondent-State is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail application. (iv) The petitioner-accused shall abide by conditions stipulated in Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480 (3) of BNSS).
Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 16.04.2026 YVL
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the petitioner is released on bail there is every chance of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 480, 480(3), 483; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 62(2)(j), 64(2)(m), 65(1), 137(2), 183, 351(3); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — ss. 5, 6; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 437(3).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Telangana High Court, on 16 Apr 2026. The bench was K SUJANA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.