The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y Koteswar Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CIiIMINAL PETITION No.8417 of 2025 Order: 'l'his Crirninat Petition is trled by the petitioner/accused No. [, seeking regular' lrail under Sections 480 and 483 olBharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), in connection with Crirne No.412 of 2025 of Saloornagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, registered lirr thc otlences punishable under Sections 3i6(2)(n),35a- A and 506 r,'u, 34 of tlie lnd ian Penal Code, I 860 (lor short 'IPC')

2. IIeard I\4r.Y.Koteswar Rao, learuecl counsel fol rhe petitioner and Mr. Sycd Yasar lr4amoon, Iearned Additional Public I)rosecutor appearing lbr the r..espondent/State.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that since 2020, the cornplainant u,as ll'iend with petitioner/accused No.3, rvho io 2021 forcibly introcluccd her to her brother, Durga Prasad. He pressured the complainant to communicate with him and, when she refused, blackmailed her rvitli morphed photos. Out of fear, she was forced to stay in contact with him. In August 2021,, Durga Prasacl came to the complainant's honre while she was alone, forcibly had sexual intercourse u,ith her withoyt her consent, and secretly recorded it. He ,, then used the video to repeatedly blackmail and exploit her. In November 2023, Dwga Prasad shared the videos with his friend, accused No.2, who obtained the complainant's phone number through his wife and began blackmailing her into making a nude video call, which he recorded. In January 2024,, accused No.2 called her to his house and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her multiple times using blackmail. Unable to endure the harassment, the complainant attempted suicide on January 3, 2025, was hospitalized, and later sullered frorn depression. Upon rcgaining rnental stability, she approached the police station and requested to take necessary legal actlon.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime. [[e turther submitted that the only allegation levelled against petitioner/accused No.l is that he developed the physical relationship with the victim, has taken the photos of the victim and recorded the conversation between him and the victim. He transfened the said photos and videos to accused No.2's mobile and others. He further submitted that the ingredients under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC are not attracted against the petitioner and the punishment prescribed for the r( .. +ilHE ,a--!1. 3 other ofl'ences is upto seven years. Tl-re investigating officer without following the nra rdatory procedure prescribed under Secl.ion 35 (3) of BNSS, are pr',rceecling. He lurlher subnritted that thr: very salne allegations are lr:velled against accused No.2 and the learned XIII Additional Distlict and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddv District at L.B.Nagar has granted bail in his lavour in Crl.M.l'}.No.l209 of 2025, dated 19.06.2025. Ilence, the petitioner/accused No. I is entitled lor same relief rvhicrr rvas granted in lavour ol- accused No.2. He further subrlritted t.hat pet itioner/accused No.l u'as surrendered before thc concerled Policc cn 04.06.2025 aud since then he was in judicial custody. He lultlrer submitted that entire investigation is completed, except filing ol charge shect and the petitioner is eking out her livelihood by dorng small Idly business. He further submitted that the Courl belou, clismissed the bail application in favour of petitioner/ accused No.I only' basing on the aveunents made in the counter affidavit by the prosecution that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner/accused No. I is required. lfowever, the prosecution has not filed any apptication seeking police custody petition as required under Section 187 ol IINSS within a statutory period. Hence, at this stage the plosecution is not entitled to fiIe said application. He further 4 submitted that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and also abide by the conditions which are going to be irnposed by this Courl. In suppoft his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Kan.rataka in Hyder Ali v. State of Kurnataka | .

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the pctitioncr has comrnitted grave olfence and there are scrious allegations are levelled against the petitioner. He further submitted that ingredients under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC are attracted against accused No. 1. He further submitted that mere granting bail in favour of accused No.2 by the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in favour of accused No.2 is not a ground for granting of bail in favour of petitioner/accused No. l. He lurther submitted that the investigation is under progress and at this stage if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every chance to interfere with thc investigation and also inlluence the witness. I{ence, praycd to dismiss the pctition. 1 2024 Lawsuit (Kar) 827 5

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal ofthe material available on record' it reveals that the petitioner has not only developed the physical relationship with the victim, but also has taken the photos of the victim and recorded the conversation between him and the victim' He transfened the said photos and videos to accused No'2's mobile and others. 'fhe r.ecord f'urther leveals that the investigation is in progress and charge sheet has not yet filed. The record also discloses that accused No 2 was arrested and he was sent to judicial custody on

19.04.2025 and after lapse of a long period, the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at I-.B.Nagar has granted bait in his favour. Whereas in the case on hand accuserl No.l was surrendered befbre the conoerned Police on

04.06.2025. Ilven according to the learned r\dditional Public Prosecutor, the investigation is under progress ancl charge sheet has not been filed. Insofar as the other contention raised by the leamed counsel for the petitioner is concerned that the court below dismissed the bail application in respect of accused No.l only basing on the averments rnade in the counter affidavit by the prosecution and made specific avemlent tlat custodial interrogation of the accused No' 1 is \ 6 required. However, the prosecution filed application within the stipulated time and as per the provision of Section 187 of BNSS, prosecution is not entitled to file said application after expiry of statutory period. Hence, this Court is not inclined to accept such submission, the prosecution has opposed the bail application only on the ground that custodial interrogation of the accused No.1 is required and also raised several other grounds especially that accused No.1 committed the grave offence and specific allegations are levelled against him.

7. The judgment relied upon by the leamed counsel for the petitioner is not applicable for deciding the present application, especially since the ground cited by the petitioner would only be relevant if the prosecution had filed an application seeking custodial rnterrosation.

8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail in favour of accused No. 1 .

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. ,..:.+a. d-- -.-E ,€r. 7 f I closed As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand SD/.A.SREENIVASA REDDY T REGISTRAR ASSIST To, //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER 2 J 4 E 1 The special Judicral First class Magistrate. Excise-cum-V Additional Judicial l/agistrate-cJm-V Additional JuniorCivil Judqe, LB Naqar, Ranoa Reddv The Station House Officer, Saroornagar police StationlRachak6nda. The S_uperintendent Central Prison, Cherlapally, Medchal Malkajgiri One CC to Sri Y Koteswar Rao, Advocate [OP[JC] Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies o SM/ABK HIGH COURT DATED: 1510712025 a I I I -,1. ,.,,.,... ) -/, :- , ,..J 25 SEP zffi ',i),. r:'s-. -; ORDER CRLP.No.8417 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION I /7 // s //