THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13050 OF 2025

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)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’).

2. The facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged by the complainant on 22.09.2025 stating that in the year 2021, the complainant got acquainted with the petitioner herein Mokhamatam Satish Kumar, residing in the same colony and expressed his love and proposed marriage, which she initially ignored. His elder sister, Padmini, then spoke to her and assured that the marriage would happen. Based on this assurance, the complainant began speaking with Satish, met him frequently and after Satish changed his job, he rented a room at HIG 147, Sujathamma Nilayam, Road No.5, KPHB, and asked her to stay with him, saying they would marry in the future. They lived together until January 2025 and had a physical relationship from the year 2022. On the eve of Sankranthi 2025, the petitioner said he would speak to his parents about their marriage and went to his native village but after returning, he avoided her for a week, prompting the complainant to visit his sister’ house where his sister and her husband, Pandu Ranga Rao, informed her that due to caste differences, their family would not accept the marriage and spoke abusively about her caste. When questioned them as to why they had supported their relationship earlier, they asked her to wait and not to contact Satish directly. Later, she came to know that Satish was getting engaged to another woman, went to his village, Kalla in Bhimavaram, to meet him, but his family opposed her, and Satish confirmed that his parents would not accept the marriage due to caste issues. It is also stated that during their living together, Satish physically assaulted her when she spoke to others, and now the petitioner, his sister and brother-in-law had abused her on her caste name and defamed her character. Hence, she requested for taking necessary legal action against all the accused. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Rajath Kumar Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and Sri T.Vasantha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the defacto complainant and petitioner are well acquainted from the year 2021 and they have parted their ways from January, 2025. The defacto complainant is well educated person working as Software employee and it cannot be said that the petitioner cheated her under the pretext of marriage and both of them are very well aware of their acts. That the petitioner does not know about the caste of the defacto complainant until the police called him and his family members to the police station in first week of September. He further submitted that this false complaint is filed only to wreck personal vengeance as the defacto complainant got to know about the marriage alliance of petitioner and who was about to get engaged. Further, material part of investigation is almost completed, as such, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for 2nd respondent filed counter stating that accused Nos. 2 and 3 have supported the petitioner in committing the alleged acts. The relationship between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent was not disputed, it was denied that the petitioner had not committed any offence. It is also disputed that the