1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail regarding allegations of sexual exploitation under false promises of marriage registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 1126
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
N.TUKARAMJI, J.
Mohammed Kamaluddin – Petitioner/Accused
Versus
The State of Telangana and another – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 16904 of 2026
Decided On : 27-10-2026
Important Points
At the anticipatory bail stage for offences involving sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage, the court does not meticulously examine evidence; the distinction between a deceptive promise and a subsequent breach of a good-faith promise is a matter for investigation.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA: S.69
Headnote
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 69 - Anticipatory bail - Sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage - Whether the accused had a deceptive intention from the inception or subsequently failed to fulfil a promise made in good faith is a matter for investigation - Distinction between a false promise made without any intention of fulfilment and a subsequent breach of a promise made in good faith is relevant to the complainant’s decision to engage in sexual relations. (Paras 8, 9)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - Scope of inquiry - At the stage of considering anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or render definitive findings on disputed questions of fact and law. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrayed as the sole accused in a crime registered for the offence of sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage. The de facto complainant, a married woman and mother of two, alleged she was induced into a physical relationship by the petitioner based on a false assurance of marriage. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, asserting that the complainant initiated the relationship and had a history of filing similar false complaints resulting in acquittals. He further alleged that the accusations were intended to extort money.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the determination of whether there was a deceptive intention from the start or a breach of a good-faith promise is a matter for investigation. Considering the nature of the allegations, the marital status of the complainant, the disputed nature of the petitioner's intention, and the petitioner's willingness to cooperate with the investigation, it was appropriate to grant anticipatory bail without expressing an opinion on the merits.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail and whether the court should decide the factual dispute regarding the deceptive nature of the promise of marriage at the bail stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that for the purposes of anticipatory bail, a meticulous examination of evidence is not required. It reaffirmed that there is a legal distinction between a promise made with no intention of fulfillment and a promise made in good faith that is later breached, and such a distinction is a matter of investigation rather than an immediate judicial finding at the pre-arrest stage.
Result: Criminal Petition allowed subject to conditions.
(B) Anticipatory Bail - Scope of inquiry - At the stage of considering anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or render definitive findings on disputed questions of fact and law. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrayed as the sole accused in a crime registered for the offence of sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage. The de facto complainant, a married woman and mother of two, alleged she was induced into a physical relationship by the petitioner based on a false assurance of marriage. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, asserting that the complainant initiated the relationship and had a history of filing similar false complaints resulting in acquittals. He further alleged that the accusations were intended to extort money.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the determination of whether there was a deceptive intention from the start or a breach of a good-faith promise is a matter for investigation. Considering the nature of the allegations, the marital status of the complainant, the disputed nature of the petitioner's intention, and the petitioner's willingness to cooperate with the investigation, it was appropriate to grant anticipatory bail without expressing an opinion on the merits.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail and whether the court should decide the factual dispute regarding the deceptive nature of the promise of marriage at the bail stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that for the purposes of anticipatory bail, a meticulous examination of evidence is not required. It reaffirmed that there is a legal distinction between a promise made with no intention of fulfillment and a promise made in good faith that is later breached, and such a distinction is a matter of investigation rather than an immediate judicial finding at the pre-arrest stage.
Result: Criminal Petition allowed subject to conditions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims false implication and consensual relationship, while the prosecution contends the investigation is nascent and custodial interrogation is required. (Para 6 )
3. The court noted that determining deceptive intention requires investigation, and anticipatory bail is appropriate without expressing merits on disputed questions of fact. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Anticipatory bail may be granted when there is no prima facie evidence of deceptive intent, balancing the need for investigation and the accused's right to liberty. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
5. The criminal petition is allowed, granting anticipatory bail subject to conditions including surrender, furnishing security, and cooperation with the ongoing investigation. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. What standard should a court apply when considering an anticipatory bail application involving allegations of sexual exploitation based on false promises of marriage?
At the anticipatory bail stage, courts should not conduct a meticulous examination of evidence or render definitive findings on disputed facts, such as whether a promise of marriage was deceptive or made in good faith; such matters are to be determined through investigation. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. What distinction must courts observe regarding false promises of marriage and breach of promise in the context of sexual offenses?
Courts must distinguish between a false promise made without any intention of fulfillment, which may constitute deception, and a subsequent breach of a promise made in good faith; the nexus between the promise and the complainant's decision to engage in physical relations is a critical legal consideration. (Para 9 )
ORDER:
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as sole accused in FIR No.350 of 2026 on the file of the Santoshnagar Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).
3. Heard Mr.Mohd. Rafee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent No.1-State.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant, who was married in 2019 and mother of two children, alleges that the petitioner herein contacted her through the IMO application approximately 18 months prior to the complaint and induced her to believe his alleged false promise of marriage, thereby persuading her to enter into a physical relationship with him. Believing his assurance, she separated from her husband and continued her relationship with the petitioner. It is further alleged that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions at MNR Grand Luxury Hotel, situated at Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad, while repeatedly assuring her that he would marry her. However, the petitioner subsequently refused to marry her. Based on the said report, a crime came to be registered.
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the de facto complainant has targeted the petitioner, allegedly exhibiting similar conduct in an earlier case, namely, Crime No. 43 of 2022 of P.S. Kalapattar, which was registered against another person, subsequently numbered as S.C. No. 823 of 2023 on the file of the X Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and ultimately ended in acquittal. Be that as it may, the petitioner contends that the de facto complainant herself initiated contact with him through electronic communication and pressured him into having a physical relationship with her.
5.2. It is further submitted that the petitioner had furnished relevant material, including electronic evidence, to the police in support of his complaint came to be lodged that the de facto complainant had harassed him and insisted upon establishing such a relationship with him. Learned counsel further submits that, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at face value, the de facto complainant was already married and had children. According to the petitioner, the details concerning her husband’s name and the gender of her children have been conspicuously distinct between the complaints lodged by the de facto complaint.
5.3. The petitioner contends that the allegation that he sexually exploited the de facto complainant on the pretext of a promise of marriage is without any factual basis and, according to him, does not accord with ordinary prudence. It is further submitted that the de facto complainant has been making false allegations and monetary demands with a view to pressurising the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner apprehends that the investigating agency may arrest him and subject him to coercive action. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks the grant of anticipatory bail.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, submitting that the investigation is still at a nascent stage. It is contended that the allegations in the complaint are directed against the petitioner, who is alleged to have induced the de facto complainant to enter into a physical relationship with him on the assurance that he would marry her. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the acquittal recorded in the earlier case cannot, by itself, constitute a determinative factor for granting an
