ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) by the petitioner/accused seeking bailin the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.379 of 2025 of Moinabad Police Station, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 64 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The facts of the case are that on 11.06.2025 the defacto complainant lodged a complaint with the police stating that she was offered a job at Square Route Consultancy and had received an offer letter. Thereafter, Dr. Girish came to pick her up and continued insisting on meeting her, despite her refusal. On 07.06.2025, he again pressed her to meet, using his WhatsApp number 8019901769 for calls and chats. On 08.06.2025, he met her with a girl named Deepa in his car, who teased them and encouraged him to get into a relationship with her. The CCTV footage captured him arriving in his car. On 11.06.2025, they decided to meet at Cable Bridge, but instead he took her from outside Mc.Donald between 8:45 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. to Sai Datta area basement, which was under CCTV coverage. He first took her to Cable Bridge and added something to her water, after which she was partially unconscious, and then drove her to an isolated place in Moinabad, there, throughout the night, he sexually assaulted her forcing her to perform oral sex. In the morning, he promised to marry her and secure her job permanently, though it was only a one-year contract. He further blackmailed her, demanded money claiming he had debts of one crore, and showed her a fake termination letter, due to which she lost her job. She later learnt from one of his colleagues that he had similarly exploited other girls and committed financial fraud, for which she had proof of chats. She also stated that Deepa was involved in the matter. On one occasion, he himself messaged her to come to the police station claiming he was with the ACP, but when she reached there, he was not present. Hence, the complainant requested the police to take necessary action. Basing on the said complaint the police registered the case against the accused for the above offence.

3. Heard Ms. S. Nalini Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the said allegations and the complainant is a habitual complainant and filed similar false complaints against many other innocent persons and Haryana police had filed criminal cases against the complainant herein for the offences of extortion. There is no iota of truth in the said allegations and Section 64 (1) of BNS is not applicable to the petitioner. As such, requested this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the alleged offence is heinous in nature. Considering the severity of the allegations, petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel and the material on record,the alleged offence against the petitioner is under Section 64 (1) of BNS which is a serious allegation, whereas, the petitioner herein filed the past crime history of the complainant herein showing that she already implicated several persons with the similar allegations and that she is a married woman and petitioner also filed a copy of petition filed before the Family Cou