COMMON ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to cancel the bail granted to the respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.11208 of 2025 dated 08.09.2025.

Heard Sari B. Sree Rama Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachander Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State as well as Smt. Katta Sravya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the anticipatory bail granted to the 2nd respondent in Crl.P.No.11208 of 2025 is unsustainable and liable to be cancelled and that the said bail was granted on an erroneous and inadequate ground, without considering the serious allegations attracting Section 69 of BNS, which criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained by deceit or false promise of marriage. He further submitted that the 2nd respondent is a habitual offender, having previously been involved in a similar offence, and there exists a strong likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. It is argued that continuation of anticipatory bail would adversely affect the investigation and trial, and therefore, the same warrants cancellation in the interest of justice. Hence, he prayed the Court to cancel the bail granted to the respondents by allowing this Criminal Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant submitted that I.A.Nos.2 to 4 of 2026 are filed to bring on record additional and material grounds which were inadvertently omitted earlier due to change of counsel, and for effective adjudication of the matter. He contended that the respondent induced the petitioner into a relationship on a false promise of marriage and subsequently betrayed her by getting engaged to another woman for monetary considerations, thereby attracting the offence under Section 69 of BNS, 2023. He further submitted that the dispute has elements of a family dispute involving closely related parties, and therefore this Court may consider directing counseling/mediation to arrive at an amicable resolution and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the anticipatory bail was rightly granted by this Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. She further submitted that the allegations are false and motivated, arising out of personal disputes, and that no offence under Section 69 of BNS is made out. She contended that the 2nd respondent has complied with all conditions imposed by the Court and has not misused the liberty granted to him. She further contended that mere apprehensions of tampering with evidence are unfounded and that there are no supervening circumstances warranting cancellation of bail. Hence, she prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused submitted that the Interlocutory Applications are not maintainable and are filed only to introduce repetitive and unnecessary averments and that the relationship between the parties was consensual and the allegations of false promise of marriage are misconceived. She further argued that the reliefs sought, including counseling or directions affecting the respondent’s personal decisions, are beyond the scope of the present proceedings. Hence, it is prayed that the Interlocutory Applications be dismissed.

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court has carefully considered the rival contentions. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the respondent No.2 had induced the petitioner into a relationship on a false promise of marriage and subsequently betrayed her by getting engaged to another woman, and therefore sought cancellation of bail along with consideration of additional grounds and directions for counseling. On the other han