IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9190 of 2026 DATE: 29.06.2026 Between: Majji Durga Prasad …. Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. Through SHO, SR Nagar P.S. …. Respondent/Complainant : ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner-accused praying to enlarge him on bail in connection with Crime No.253 of 2026 of S.R. Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.04.2026, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before police stating that 2

she had been in a relationship with her brother-in-law, namely Majji Durgaprasad since 2018. In June 2018, he proposed her stating that he would marry her and she accepted his proposal. On 23.05.2025, both of them went to Oyo Town House near Ananda Brahma Restaurant, S.R. Nagar and met physically for the first time. She told him that she would be physical with him only if he married her. He accepted her condition and promised that he would speak with the family members of both families and convince them. Thereafter, they had sexual intercourse on multiple occasions and on 28.02.2026 at Oyo Town House near Ananda Brahma, S.R. Nagar, they had sexual intercourse for the last time. Thereafter, he started avoiding the complainant and stopped responding to her calls. On 20.03.2026, she came to know that she was pregnant. The complainant informed him over the phone about her pregnancy, but he replied that he was not responsible for it. Hence, she requested the police to take necessary action. Based on the said complaint, the police registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS. 3 3. Heard Sri A.S. Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations levelled against him and has been in judicial custody since 30.04.2026 and that the material part of the investigation has already been substantially completed. Hence, he prayed this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail by allowing this criminal petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail, contending that the offences alleged against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature and that the investigation has not yet been completed. Therefore, he contended that at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. However, he informed the Court that the statements of the victim under Section 183 of BNSS were recorded. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 30.04.2026. As per the remand case diary, prosecution witnesses, namely LWs.1 to 4 14, have already been examined. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the progress of the investigation and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., on every Wednesday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required. iii. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 483(2) of the BNSS. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 29.06.2026 SS 5 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9190 of 2026 Date: 29.06.2026 SS

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9190 of 2026 DATE: 29.06.2026 Between: Majji Durga Prasad …. Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. Through SHO, SR Nagar P.S. …. Respondent/Complainant : ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner-accused praying to enlarge him on bail in connection with Crime No.253 of 2026 of S.R. Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.04.2026, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before police stating that 2

she had been in a relationship with her brother-in-law, namely Majji Durgaprasad since 2018. In June 2018, he proposed her stating that he would marry her and she accepted his proposal. On 23.05.2025, both of them went to Oyo Town House near Ananda Brahma Restaurant, S.R. Nagar and met physically for the first time. She told him that she would be physical with him only if he married her. He accepted her condition and promised that he would speak with the family members of both families and convince them. Thereafter, they had sexual intercourse on multiple occasions and on 28.02.2026 at Oyo Town House near Ananda Brahma, S.R. Nagar, they had sexual intercourse for the last time. Thereafter, he started avoiding the complainant and stopped responding to her calls. On 20.03.2026, she came to know that she was pregnant. The complainant informed him over the phone about her pregnancy, but he replied that he was not responsible for it. Hence, she requested the police to take necessary action. Based on the said complaint, the police registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS. 3 3. Heard Sri A.S. Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations levelled against him and has been in judicial custody since 30.04.2026 and that the material part of the investigation has already been substantially completed. Hence, he prayed this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail by allowing this criminal petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail, contending that the offences alleged against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature and that the investigation has not yet been completed. Therefore, he contended that at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. However, he informed the Court that the statements of the victim under Section 183 of BNSS were recorded. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 30.04.2026. As per the remand case diary, prosecution witnesses, namely LWs.1 to 4 14, have already been examined. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the progress of the investigation and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., on every Wednesday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required. iii. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 483(2) of the BNSS. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 29.06.2026 SS 5 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9190 of 2026 Date: 29.06.2026 SS