##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.12716 of 2026 DATE: 17.08.2026 BETWEEN:

E.Vijay Goud …..Petitioner-Sole Accused And The State of Telangana, Through SHO, Gachibowli Police Station, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad …..Respondent

ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner-sole accused on bail in connection with FIR No.1112 of 2026 of Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS.

2. Heard Sri D.V.Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent–State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that consented relationship between the two adults does not become criminal offence merely because the marriage did not take place. Petitioner-accused is falsely implicated in the case, if two adults enter into a relationship willfully and the relationship later ends due to a change in circumstances, personal differences or external factors, it is a failed relationship and not a criminal offence. Consistent longstanding relationship between two major persons implies an ongoing agreement and a breakdown or breakup does not mean that the consent was initially obtained by deception. On perusal of the complaint, there is no evidence much less reliable evidence in order to prove the allegations made by the de facto complainant except for bald and ominous allegations. Entire investigation is completed. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharastra and Another¹ and Jim Elliot v. The State of Telangana, Hyderabad..

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that prosecution has made an application before the concerned Court to nominate the magistrate to record the statement of the victim under Section 183 of BNSS. Investigation is still pending and that the petitioner-accused is not entitled for grant of bail.

(2024) 11 SCC 398

Crl.p.No.3049 of 2026 dated 06.03.2026 of the high court for the state of telangana,

5. De facto complainant has lodged a report before the Gachibowli Police Station on 23.06.2026. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioner-accused is from her same village, they started relation on 30.06.2022 and they have physical relationship in the month of November, 2022 at Oyo Townhouse (Jahnavi Group Hotels), Kondapur. They frequently meet alternate months at that place. The petitioner- accused has promised to marry her, she believed his words and continued her relationship. When she conceived for the first time, petitioner-accused gave her pills to abort on 25.12.2024. She again conceived for the second time. Petitioner-accused has again gave her pills. Petitioner-accused abused the de facto complainant in vulgar language and he has blamed her without fault on her side, basing on the said complaint, FIR came to be registered.

6. Petitioner-accused is arrested on 10.07.2026 at 0250 hours and was produced before the concerned magistrate for remand, since then he is in judicial custody.

7. Remand case diary goes to show that respondent has examined altogether 13 witnesses, 1 Police Officer who issued FIR and another investigating officer who arrested the accused.

8.1 In Mahesh Damu Khare¹, Supreme Court held that “There is a difference between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused. In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecution and would have cheated or deceited the prosecutrix by giving a false promise to marry her only with a view to satisfy his lust, whereas in case of breach of promise, one cannot d