The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., P.S. KPHB Colony, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Medchal Malkajgiri District, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court, at Hyderabad ......RESPONDENT Karam Nagarani, D/o. Late. K. Babu Rao, Age.28 Years, Occ. Software !n1nloVq9, ${o llc '147, Sujathamma Nihyam, Road No. 5, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District-500072. Cell No. 9122233333, 7680841734. .....RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of BNSS of praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/ Accused No. 1 by directing the S.H.O., P.S. KPHB Colony, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Medchal Malkajgiri District, or any arresting officer, to enlarge him on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 1242 ol 2025, of P.S. KPHB Colony, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Medchal Malkajgiri District, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri RAJATH KUMAR PRADHAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and the D. ARUN KUMAR Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. .l and of sri r. VASANTHA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA ci3IMrNAL PETITTON No.13O5O OF 2o.2s ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Secr-ion 4g2 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2O2i\ by the petitioner/A.1 seeking anticipatory bait in connecti,tn with FIR No-1242 of 2025 of KPHB colony, cyberabad commissionerare, Medchal Matkajgiri District. The offences alleged rrgainst the petitioner are under Sections 69 of Bharatiya Nya1,a Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled C)astes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19g9' (for short 'SC/ST Act).

2. The facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged by the complainant on 22.09.2025 stating that in the yezrr 2021, the complainant got acquainted with the petition,:r herein Mokhamatam Satish Kumar, residing in the same cc,lony and expressed his love and proposed marriage, which shr: initially ignored. His elder sister, Padmini, then spoke to her and assured that the marriage would happen. Based on this assurance, the complainant began speaking with Satish, met him frequently and after Satish changed his job, he rented a -2- room at HIG 147, Sujathamma Nilayam, Road No.5, KpHB, and asked her to stay with him, saying they would marry in the future. They lived together until January 2o2s and had a physical relationship from the year 2022. on the eve of Sankranthi 2o2s, the petitioner said he would speak to his parents about their marriage and went to his native village but after returning, he avoided her for a week, prompting the complainant to visit his sister' house where his sister and her husband, Pandu Ranga Rao, informed her that due to caste differences, their family would not accept the marriage and spoke abusively about her caste. when questioned them as to why they had supported their relationship earlier, they asked her to wait and not to contact satish directly. Later, she came to know that Satish was getting engaged to another woman, went to his village, Kalla in Bhimavaram, to meet him, but his family opposed her, and Satish confirmed that his parents would not accept the marriage due to caste issues. It is also stated that during their living together, satish physically assaulted her when she spoke to others, and now the petitioner, his sister and brother-in-law had abused her on her caste name and defamed her character' Hence, she requested for taking necessary regar action against all the accused. Basing on the said complaint, -3- the police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Rajath Kumar Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additiorral Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and Sri T.Vasantha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contende d that the defacto complainant and petitioner are well acquainte'l from the year 2021 and they have parted their ways from Januaty, 2025. The defacto complainant is well educated person rtorking as Software employee and it cannot be said that the petitioner cheated her under the pretext of marriage and both of them are very well aware of their acts. That the petitioner does not know about the caste of the defacto complainant until the police called him and his family members to the police station in first weekofseptember.Hefurthersubmittedthatthisfalse complaint is f,rled only to wreck personal vengeanc(l as the defactocomplainantgottoknowaboutthemarriageallianceof petitioner and who was about to get engaged' Further' material partofinvestigationisalmostcompleted,assuch,prtryedthis Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner' -4-

5. on the other hand, Iearned counsel for 2.d respondent filed counter stating that accused Nos. 2 and 3 have supported the petitioner in committing the alleged acts. The relationship . between the petitioner and the 2"rr respondent was not disputed, it was denied that the petitioner had not committed any offence. It is also disputed that they parted ways in Janua ry 2o2s and that there was no physical relationship between the parties. Despite being educated, the 2na respondent was deceived by the petitioner and his family under the false promise of marriage, and her vulnerability was taken advantage of. The petitioner,s claim of ignorance regarding her background was contradicted by his own admission of a four-year acquaintance. The petitioner and his family were actively involved in the offence, and the 2"d respondent was subjected to emotional and social harm. If petitioner is granted bail he might destroy evidence or threaten witnesses and his custodial interrogation is necessary for proper investigation. It is further alleged that the 2nd respondent was not informed about the order passed in crl.P.No. 12742 of 2022 and was taking steps for redressal. Further this application is not maintainable in view of bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act. Hence, prayed this Court not to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and to dismiss the same. -5- 6- On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor also opposed bail on the ground that under the guise of marriage the petitioner had relationship with the defacto complainant and also abused her in her caste name and defamed her character. Hence, prayed this Court to dismiss this petition.

7. Considering the submissions made by both r-he counsel and the material on record, the averments in the complaint shows that the petitioner and defacto complaina.nt are in relationship from the year 2O2l till 2025 and had physical relationship multiple times under the guise of marriage. Thereafter the petitioner refused to marry as the complainant belongs to the ST community. It appears that though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the provisions of Sections 3(2)(va) of the SC/st Act are not attracted to the present case, the allegations in the complaint pima facie disclose that the petitioner abused the complainant in the name of her caste. In view of the settled position of law, this court, at the 8. stage of consiclering an application for pre-arrest ba.l, cannot come to the conclusion that there was no intentional insult on -6- -r the part of the petitioner. The allegations in the complaint, if taken at their face value , pima facie disclose the commission of offences alleged, and as such, the statutory bar under section 18 of the SC/sr Act, applies to the present case. Moreover, investigation is still in progress.

9. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, this court is not inclined to grant pre- arrest bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed. 1O. Accordingly, rhe Criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if d.y, pending shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR 0 SECTION OFFICER 1' The AJCJ CUM XVadditional Judical Magistrate of First Class at Kukatpaly Medchal Malkagri District 2. The Station HoEg Q{cer, potice S!a!ign, KPHB Colony, Cyberabad 3. one cc to sRr RAJATH KUMAR pRADFiair nJrocateibijucj---" 4. Two ccs to public prosecutor, High bor.t ibr'tiiJ sGte bi reraigana at _ :lyderabad [OUT] 5 Two CD Coiies ,yr' VM/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 0411112025 ORDER CRLP.No.13050 ot 2025 1' 5 3 ,i1 ll$I [l?5 €) -+: DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1\ f\