High Court · 2025

The state of rerangana, rep. by its pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana. through Vanasihalipura, pofi". Strt,on, Rachakonda Ranga Reddy ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section.4g2 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Groundr petition, the High court may be plea-sed to enrarge the-petitioner o" b"ia;;il;;vent of arrest in FrR No. 500 of 2025' dated 15.04.2025, on td fih ;;'i;.'V' Additionar Metroporiran Magistrate, cyberabad at Hayathnagar, il"s, nJooy oi.tri"t, in the interest of justice; "rcli,iinli This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition.and_upon t*"iin!-ir,Jirguments of sri J Abhishek, Advocate representino sri KAVADT'NAREGH i\;;;;"te for the petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon,-Addt._ pubtic p;;";rt"i o,i t""irrt of the Respondent; The Court made the following: ORDER The flon'ble Sri Iusti ce I.Sfeen Ivas Rao Criminal Petitio nNo. 6682 of 25 Order, This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for shon, 'BNSS) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No'1 in Crime No.500 of 2O25of Vanasthalipr'ram Police Station, Rachakonda' registered for the offences punishable under Sections 5a(2)(m)' 85, 318(2) and 351(2) of the Bharat'y'Ny y'Sanhitha' 2023 (for shon'BNS).

2. Ffuard Mr. J.Abhishek leamed counsel representing lvlr. Kavadi Naresh, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing f or the respondent/ State'

3. The case of the Prosecution is that on 15.04'2025 at about 11:59 hours, the complainant filed a complaint stating that her maniage with accused No.2 was solemnized on 23.11.2023 at H).derabad and only a fe* dap thereafter' she carne to know that her husband is dfuinterested in family life and 2 she informed the same to the petitioner, who is the grandfather of her husband and the petitioner, instead of aking to her husband, took advantage of the situation and whenever the complainant was alone at home, had forcible phpical relationship with her and in order to avoid the petitioner, she came back to her parents' house at Hyderabad, bur the petitioner used to come ro her parents, house in thei absence and continued the harassment and hence, she informed the same to her mother. Basing on rhe said complaint, the aforesaid crime was registered against the petitioner and other accused for the aforesaid offences.

4. karned counsel for rhe petitioner submits that the petfuioner has not committed any offence and he wCI falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime and there is no relatiorship between the petitioner and the complainant. FIe submits that there are matrimonial disputes between the complainant and accued No.2 and a peririon for divorce is pending before the competent cotut and in order to resolve those disputes, the 3 complainant has impleaded the petitioner as accused in the present crime. kamed counsel further submits that vague allegations have been levelled in the complaint and there is no nrention therein as to the date of offence and the petitioner s 72 years old and he usually resides in LJSA but as he is suffenng from cardiac problerrl he is undergoing treatment in India and that he is not having any criminal antecedens and pra)6 to grant anticipatory bail as he is ready and willing to coopeftrte with the investigating officer for investigation and abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this C-ourt. In support of his contention, leamed counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the High CoLut of Mrdhy, Pradesh (|abalpur Bench) in Ghanshyam Sen v. The State of Madhya Pradeshl and of the F[gh C-oun of Andhr:a pradesh at Amaravati in Gade Raja Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh2. ' uaNulvtclozlslzozz t t auu / ep I ooez/ 2oz1- -- '7 4

5. per contra, leamed Additional public prosecutor that the petitioner/accused submits No.1 has commined grave offence and specific a'egations are leve,ed against him so as ro aftracr the ingredients of Section 6+(2)(n)of BNS. He further submirs that rnere non-meftioning of the date of areged offence in the complaint is not a ground ro granr aruicipatory bail in favour of the petirioner and the complainant has specificallymendoned role of the petitioner in the alleged offence and the invesdgation is at the threshold and if rhe petitioner is granted bail at this stage, he will interfere with the investigation and tamper with the evidence' Flence, he prals to dtmiss this crimrnar petition. 6. Fhvrng considered the rival submissiorrs made by learned counsel for the panies and on perusal of the marerial available on record it reveals thar there is no dispute that the pedtioner is relative of the complainanr and rhe complainant specifically rnentioned the role of the petitioner in the alleged offence against her and serjous allegations are levelled against the petitioner so as to anracr tfi"e-jngredients of Section e+e)@) of the BNS. 5 Insofar as the petitioner's contention regarding non- mentiomng of the date of offence in the complaint is concerned, the sarne is not a ground for grant of anticipatoty b,il to the petitioner especially when specific allegations are leveled agairst hirn The decisions relied upon bythe leamed counsel for the Petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case, specific allegations are made against the petitioner'

7. In view of the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner/accused No.1 and as serious allegations are levelled agarrut him, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to him' 8. Accordingly, the C-riminal Petition is dismissed' As a sequel, miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, stand closed. SD/-A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, Rangareddy District

2. The Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram P.S., Rachakonda 3. One CC to SRl. KAVADI NARESH Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 5. Two CD Copies VSM/PSL qA- HIGH GOURT DATED:1710612025 I t .ri -..1 j / .) I t 31 JUt ?ffi * l)[.'-- i .4 ';1;'. iEo ORDER CRLP.No.6682 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION