Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Bhavanam Ramana Reddyu, S/o. Chenna Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. – Respondent
ORDER :
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
1. This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/sole accused, seeking bail, in Crime No.50/2025 of Mahila Urban Police Station, Eluru District.
2. A case has been registered against the Petitioner for the Offences under sections 69, 77, 88 of the B.N.S.
3. The prosecution's case, in brief, iS that the de-facto Complainant, Thota Lakshmi Tejaswini, was pursuing an MD in Anesthesia at ASRAM Medical College, EIuru, from 2022 to 2025. ln March 2023, she developed an intimate relationship with the accused, who was pursuing an MD in Radiology at the same college, They became acquainted and maintained a friendly relationship. The accused professed love and promised to marry her, and trusting him, she fell in love. On October 1, 2023, the complainant rented a flat at Neeraja Apartments, Eluru, to continue her studies. During that period, the accused frequently Visited her flat, reiterated his promise to marry her, and had sexual intercourse with her multiple times. During their physical intimacy, the accused recorded nude videos and photographs of the complainant on his phone
The court clarified that consensual sexual relations do not always amount to rape, emphasizing individual examination of circumstances in cases of alleged deception.
Misconception of fact – Merely because physical relations were established on a promise to marry, it would not, by itself, amount to rape.
Consent given under a false promise to marry must be proven as knowingly false from the outset for an accusation of rape to succeed; consensual relationships later turning sour do not invoke criminal....
A consensual relationship should not automatically be interpreted as rape on the basis of a broken promise of marriage, emphasizing the need to consider context and intentions behind consent.
The court emphasized the distinction between consensual relationships and allegations of rape, ruling that mere allegations without evidence of coercion do not suffice for criminal proceedings.
Consent in relationships does not equate to rape unless proven that the promise of marriage was made with no intention to fulfill it; bail is the rule and imprisonment the exception.
Long-term consensual relationships cannot be criminalized as rape unless clear evidence of deceit or malicious intent is established.
The court ruled that consensual relationships turning sour do not justify rape allegations or automatic custodial interrogation, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence before arrest.
The court emphasized that the nature of the relationship between the accused and the minor was consensual, impacting the decision to grant bail despite the legal implications of the minor's consent.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
