Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
Muthoju Kiran – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS S ), in connection with Crime No.86 of 2025 on the file of Narsampet, Police Station, Warangal District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (2), 318 (4), 69, 77, 78 and 351 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 ( BNS ).
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Mr.V.Jithender Rao, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the material available on record.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant got married to one Madraju and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with one male child and four years after the marriage, they got separated due to family issues. After separation, she has been leading her life with her son by doing household chores. While things stood thus, she got acquaintance with the accused, who promised her that he will marry her and look after her welfare and her son and by saying so, he forced her for physical intimacy. It is further alleged that during their relationship, he used to take her
Deceitful inducement leading to a physical relationship can constitute an offence when accompanied by threats or intimidation, warranting denial of anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail is denied due to serious allegations of deceitful sexual conduct, emphasizing the nature and gravity of the charges involved.
The seriousness of the offence and prima facie evidence from the FIR are crucial factors in deciding on anticipatory bail.
The court clarified that consensual sexual relations do not always amount to rape, emphasizing individual examination of circumstances in cases of alleged deception.
The existence of the victim's existing marriage negates the prima facie basis for allegations of sexual assault under false promise of marriage.
The Court found that consensual relations under a promise of marriage do not always constitute rape, contingent upon the absence of bad faith in the promise.
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.
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
