SC/ST Act in view of the recent juclgl rent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court v. Rajkumar Jivraj and Anotherl, wherein it was held that when there i

Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 in the event of her arrest in Cr. No 1242 of .2025 dL.22-09-2025 on the file of P.S. KPHB Colony, Cyberabad Co m missio nerate, Medchal Malkajgiri Dist. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C SUNIL ANAND, Advocate for the Petitioner and D. ARUN KUMAR Additional Public Prosecutor on behatf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OI' IELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15447 Ot' ZO25 loth DAY OF DECEMBER 2O2 Between : Mokhamatam Satish Kumar Petitioner/ I . I And The State of Telangana, Through SHO, P.S.KPHB Colony, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Medchal- Malkaj giri District, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad & another Responden r ORDER This criminal petition is filed under S ection 4g2 o[ Bharatiya Nzrgarik Suraksha Sanhita, ) )23 by rhe petitioner/A. I seeking anticipatory bail in conr, ction rt,ith FIR No.l242 of 2025 of KPHB Colony, Cyberabad C I nmissionerate, Medchal Malkajgiri District. The offences alle g :d against the petitioner are under Sections 69 of Bharatiya )lyayzr Sanhita, { I I z I i i i I I 2023 and under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, i989 (for short 'SC/ST ActJ. The complainant lodged a complaint on 22 'O9 2025 2 stating that she became acquainted with the petitioner' herein in the year 2f)21, and based on assurances of marriage from him and his sister Padmini' she entered into a relationship and lived with him from 2022 to January 2O25 She alleged that later petitioner refused to marry her due to caste differences' and his family, including his sister and brother-in-law Pandu Ranga Rao, abused her using her caste name and defamed her' Shealsoclaimedthatpetitionerphysicallyassaultedherduring their cohabitation' Based on her complaint' a case was registered against the accused' Heard Sri C'Sunil Anand, learned Counsei for the Kumar, learned Additional Public petttroner and Sri D.Arun Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State ' The contention of Iearned counsel for the petitioner is that 4. there is no offence under SC/ST Act and the allegations shows that there is no prima-facie case against the petitioner' The whats app chat between the petitioner and complainant shows I / 3 that the complainant herself is not interested in r arrying the I petitioner. The earlier anticipatory bail applicatior r lilecl by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on thc 1 round that anticipatory bail involving SC/ST Act is not maintrr nable when there is prima-facie case against the accused u'l r reas in the present case there is no prima-facie case against t I : petitioner. The whats app chat and the photographs of thc , omplainant and petitioner sholr' that there is no such refusal o ' narriage by the petitioner. As such prayed this Court to gralrl rnticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Publ t Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the allegations itself shou s that as the complainant belongs to ST, the petitioner herei.r refused to marry her and at this stage it cannot be said tha it is a false case. Further anticipatory bail is not maintainz l le in cases under the SC/ST Act in view of the recent juclgl rent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj and Anotherl, wherein it was held that when there i,; prima-facie case against the accused, anticipatory bail canno, be granted. 1sLP (crl.) No.8169 of 2025 4 Hence, peLitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made and perusal of material on record, the earlier bail petition was dismissed on the ground that anticipatory bail is not maintainable in view of the above judgment, whereas the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the relationship between the parties itself shows that there is no fault on behalf of the petitioner herein' However the same cannot be considered at this stage to say that there is no prima-facie offence made out against the petitioner' The u,hats app chat has to be filed before the trial Court with required certificate. The allegation shows that petitioner herein refuscd to marry the complainant as she belongs to ST community. Though there is a consensual relationship between the parties for three years, it is not the stage to decide the same' Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court and file regular bail application. On frling of such application, the trial Court is directed to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law as early as possible. ...,

7. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendinrl ;hall stand closed. SD/. S. MA -LIKARJUNA RAO SSII; iANT REGISTRAR t- //TRUE COPY// \i TiECTION OFFICER To, 1 TheIVAJCJ-cum-XVAdditionalJudicialMagistrateofFi-lIClaSSat xuiatpairv, Medchal-Malkaigiri District The Station House Officer, KPHB Colony Police Station' t PHB' Cyberabad District 2

3. One CC to SRI C SUNIL ANAND Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State rr Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies VM @ HIGH COURT SKSJ DATED: 1011212025 ORDER GRLP.No.15447 of 2025 , a - -,i!. il.- j c r \,'.1 16 DiC ru[ DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 5 \t \"