IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1224 OF 2026 DATE : 17.02.2026 Between :

Nendepuram Umakanth @ Sandapuram Umakanth … Petitioner/Accused And State of Telangana, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad … Respondent/Prosecution : ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/Accused seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.11 of 2026 of Chilkalguda Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 68 (a), 75, 77 and 78 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. The facts of the case are that on 06.01.2026 the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before police stating that about one year ago, while she was working in INDIS Company, the petitioner who is her brother-in-law by relation called her over the phone, informed her that two persons were coming to his house for IT job training and asked her to join them. Believing his words, she registered for training in January 2025 and went to his house in February 2025 and till April 2025, the petitioner behaved pleasantly with her. However, from May to November 2025, he harassed me by secretly taking her nude photos without her knowledge and blackmailing her. It is further alleged that the petitioner mentally and physically harassed her, abused her, and even assaulted her by kicking her. He threatened me to obey his words, otherwise he would misuse her photos. Due to the said harassment, the complainant also attempted suicide by consuming sleeping pills. Despite this, he did not change his behavior and she also suffered health issues and out of fear of her photos being exposed, she could not reveal this matter to anyone. Hence, requested the police to take necessary action against the petitioner basing on which police registered the case against the petitioner for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Koppula Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-

State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the defacto complainant is a distant relative of petitioner and that there are property disputes between them due to which this false complaint is filed against the petitioner. He further contended that even after filing of the present complaint the complainant and petitioner are in contact and both of them went to Bombay together. Further, in the complaint the complainant stated that from May 2025 to November 2025, the petitioner herein harassed her physically and mentally but she did not file any complaint immediately but after lapse of two months, because of the family disputes between the parties, she was pressurized to lodge the present complaint. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the allegations against the petitioner are very severe in nature. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and material on record, the allegations against the petitioner are under Sections 68 (a), 75, 77 and 78 of BNS. The petitioner under the guise of relationship sexually exploited the defacto complainant. Though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no such force and that both of them went voluntarily to Singapore and other places, the allegations seems to be severe in nature. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner as such, the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court and file regular bail application. On filing of such application, the trial Court is directed to co