The court determined that serious allegations backed by witness accounts warranted denial of bail, highlighting concerns over potential evidence tampering.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section s 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking bail to the petitioner/accused in Crime No.181 of 2025 on the file of the P.S. Pahadishareef, Rachakonda, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 01-04-2025, LW-1, a student in Italy, lodged a complaint stating that his two German friends, LW-2 and LW-3, arrived to Hyderabad on 04-03- 2025 and were staying with him. On 31-03-2025, after returning from Warangal, LW-1 was informed by LW-2 that he and LW-3 had gone out to visit a vegetable market. On the way, they were approached by a car with six occupants. After a friendly interaction, LW-2 and LW-3 were persuaded to board the car. Near Pahadishareef, the driver stopped for fuel and later asked everyone to get down. Once others exited, the driver drove off with LW-3 alone and allegedly raped her at knifepoint and escaped with car.

LW-2 also reported that his mobile phone was left in the car. Basing on the same, a crime was registered in Crime No.181 of

2025.

3. Heard Mr.Mohd. Muzafferullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence and he was falsely implicated in the above crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of Section 64(1) of BNS are not attracted against the petitioner and other punishment prescribed for the other offences are upto seven years. He further submitted that the alleged incident occurred on 31.03.2025, but the victim did not lodge any complaint. Instead, her friend, the de-facto complainant, filed it on 01.04.2025. Neither of them mentioned the vehicle number or its colour, despite the alleged offence having taken place in a vehicle. He further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 02.04.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody and the petitioner is not having any other criminal antecedents and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation and also ready to abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court and hence, prayed for grant of bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has committed grave offences against the victim, who is a citizen of Germany. In the complaint as well as in the remand case diary and there are specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner and the investigation is under progress and if the petitioner is granted bail at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses, and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioner to attract section 64(1) of BNS. In the remand case diary, the investigation officer, after examining the witnesses, specifically mentioned the role of the petitioner in committing the offence. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, investigation is under progress.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity and seriousness of the offence, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner/accused.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.