THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8605 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking bail to the petitioner/accused in the event of his arrest in Crime No.469 of 2025 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 308(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 28.05.2025 at about 1730 hours, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner had contacted her on Facebook and introduced himself as a Urology Doctor at Osmania University College and on 15.08.2023, the petitioner asked her to meet him for coffee and later invited her to his house for lunch, where he drugged and physically assaulted her and when she woke up, she was naked and in a state of deep shock. Later, the petitioner blackmailed her, as a result of which she paid Rs.20 lakhs to him to safeguard herself and her family’s reputation. The petitioner further blackmailed her for Rs.1 Crore and also she is having a life threat in the hands of the petitioner. Hence, the complaint.

3. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Jandyala, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Thomas Joseph Lloyd, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1- State and Sri G. Durga Charan, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present crime. The petitioner and de facto complainant are known to each other since long time and there is consensual relationship between them. Hence, the allegation made against the petitioner that he drugged and physically assaulted the de facto complainant is not true and correct and the ingredients under Section 64(1) of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioner and the imprisonment for other offences is up to seven years. He further submitted that even according to the complaint, the alleged offence took place on 15.08.2023, whereas the de facto complainant lodged the complaint on 28.05.2025 with a delay of 21 months. He also submitted that the petitioner never blackmailed the de facto complainant and he did not receive any amount as alleged in the complaint.

4.1. He further submitted that the de facto complainant falsely implicated the petitioner in the above crime for the offence under Section 64(1) of the BNS in order to harass him and with an intention to avoid the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. The de facto complainant has not stated when she paid Rs.20 lakhs and the mode of payment and she has made vague allegations without furnishing any particulars or material evidence.

4.2. He further submitted that there was a consensual relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant for a long time and when the petitioner wanted to discontinue the said relationship, the de facto complainant pressuring him to continue the relationship. When the petitioner refused her desire, the de facto complainant lodged the complaint with false and frivolous allegations. He also submitted that the petitioner is a Doctor and his mother and father are also Doctors and he belongs to a reputed family. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court, and he shall cooperate with the investigation. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on pre-arrest bail.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant submitted that the petitioner committed a heinous crime against the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant specifically mentioned the role of the petitioner in the complaint that he had drugged her, assaulted her sexually and when she regained conscious, she was naked and in a state of