IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.15447 OF 2025

10^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2025

Between :

Mokhamatam Satish Kumar

… Petitioner/A.1

And

The State of Telangana,

Through SHO, P.S.KPHB Colony,

Cyberabad Commissionerate,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Rep., by Public Prosecutor,

High Court at Hyderabad & another

… Respondents

ORDER

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/A.1 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.1242 of 2025 of KPHB Colony, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Medchal Malkajgiri District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023 and under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’).

2. The complainant lodged a complaint on 22.09.2025 stating that she became acquainted with the petitioner, herein in the year 2021, and based on assurances of marriage from him and his sister Padmini, she entered into a relationship and lived with him from 2022 to January 2025. She alleged that later petitioner refused to marry her due to caste differences, and his family, including his sister and brother-in-law Pandu Ranga Rao, abused her using her caste name and defamed her. She also claimed that petitioner physically assaulted her during their cohabitation. Based on her complaint, a case was registered against the accused.

3. Heard Sri C.Sunil Anand, 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 there is no offence under SC/ST Act and the allegations shows that there is no prima-facie case against the petitioner. The whats app chat between the petitioner and complainant shows that the complainant herself is not interested in marrying the petitioner. The earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on the ground that anticipatory bail involving SC/ST Act is not maintainable when there is prima-facie case against the accused whereas in the present case there is no prima-facie case against the petitioner. The whats app chat and the photographs of the complainant and petitioner show that there is no such refusal of marriage by the petitioner. As such prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the allegations itself shows that as the complainant belongs to ST, the petitioner herein refused to marry her and at this stage it cannot be said that it is a false case. Further anticipatory bail is not maintainable in cases under the SC/ST Act in view of the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj and Another, SLP (Crl.) No.8169 of 2025, wherein it was held that when there is prima-facie case against the accused, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

Hence, petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made and perusal of material on record, the earlier bail petition was dismissed on the ground that anticipatory bail is not maintainable in view of the above judgment, whereas the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the relationship between the parties itself shows that there is no fault on behalf of the petitioner herein. However the same cannot be considered at this stage to say that there is no prima-facie offence made out against the petitioner. The whats app chat has to be filed before the trial Court with required certificate. The allegation shows that petitioner herein refused to marry the complainant as she belongs to ST community. Though there is a consensual relationship between the parties for three years, it is not the stage to decide the same. Hence, petitioner is directed to