IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10558 of 2026 DATE: 15.07.2026 Between: Bandi Ramaiah …. Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Telangana, Through P.S. Film Nagar, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. …. Respondent/Complainant O R D E R This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner/accused seeking enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No.281 of 2026 of Film Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 69, 77, 79, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 66 of IT Act. - 2 -

2. The brief facts of the case as stated are that, on 06.06.2026, the de-facto complainant lodged a report with the police stating that in 2023 to 2025, she worked as an assistant under Advocate and there in November 2024, she came into contact with petitioner, he initially obtained her phone number in connection with a court case and thereafter regularly spoke to her over the phone and met her at the court premises and they gradually became friends. In December 2024, the petitioner proposed marriage to her. She informed him that she was already married and had a son and rejected his proposal. Subsequently, while she was at Himayath Nagar to write a Group examination, the petitioner called her to Balaji Guest House, where he stated that he would divorce his wife and marry her, and asked her to obtain a divorce from her husband. On this promise, he established physical relations with her for the first time. Thereafter, he frequently visited her residence and had physical relations with her on several occasions by repeatedly promising to marry her. During this period, he also took her photographs and videos. Thereafter, he allegedly started harassing her through repeated phone calls and messages. He demanded Rs.1 crore and on 09.04.2026, he allegedly shared their photographs and videos with her husband - 3 -

and her friend while demanding money and threatening to kill her and her family members if his demands were not met. On 05.06.2026, he uploaded their photographs on his Instagram story and also sent abusive and objectionable messages to her husband and others. Hence, she requested the police to take necessary action. Based on the said complaint, a case was registered against the petitioner for the above mentioned offence. 3. Heard Sri V. Agni Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations and has been falsely implicated in the case and that the relationship between the petitioner and the de‑facto complainant was consensual in nature and that both parties were already married at the time they entered into the relationship, therefore, contended that the offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is not attracted. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.06.2026 and that the substantial part of the investigation has already been - 4 - completed. Hence, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the allegations against the petitioner are heinous and grievous in nature and that the investigation is still in progress. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 6. In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.06.2026. The record further reveals that both parties were already married when they entered into the relationship. As per the remand case diary, prosecution witnesses LWs.1 to 11, including the investigating officer, have already been examined. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the stage of investigation, the nature of the relationship between the parties and the duration of incarceration, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner‑accused, subject to the following conditions: - 5 - i. The petitioner-accused 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 XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad District.

ii. The petitioner-accused shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday 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-accused shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS). 7. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 15.07.2026 SS - 6 - THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10558 OF 2026 DATE: 15.07.2026 SS

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10558 of 2026 DATE: 15.07.2026 Between: Bandi Ramaiah …. Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Telangana, Through P.S. Film Nagar, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. …. Respondent/Complainant O R D E R This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner/accused seeking enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No.281 of 2026 of Film Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 69, 77, 79, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 66 of IT Act. - 2 -

2. The brief facts of the case as stated are that, on 06.06.2026, the de-facto complainant lodged a report with the police stating that in 2023 to 2025, she worked as an assistant under Advocate and there in November 2024, she came into contact with petitioner, he initially obtained her phone number in connection with a court case and thereafter regularly spoke to her over the phone and met her at the court premises and they gradually became friends. In December 2024, the petitioner proposed marriage to her. She informed him that she was already married and had a son and rejected his proposal. Subsequently, while she was at Himayath Nagar to write a Group examination, the petitioner called her to Balaji Guest House, where he stated that he would divorce his wife and marry her, and asked her to obtain a divorce from her husband. On this promise, he established physical relations with her for the first time. Thereafter, he frequently visited her residence and had physical relations with her on several occasions by repeatedly promising to marry her. During this period, he also took her photographs and videos. Thereafter, he allegedly started harassing her through repeated phone calls and messages. He demanded Rs.1 crore and on 09.04.2026, he allegedly shared their photographs and videos with her husband - 3 -

and her friend while demanding money and threatening to kill her and her family members if his demands were not met. On 05.06.2026, he uploaded their photographs on his Instagram story and also sent abusive and objectionable messages to her husband and others. Hence, she requested the police to take necessary action. Based on the said complaint, a case was registered against the petitioner for the above mentioned offence. 3. Heard Sri V. Agni Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations and has been falsely implicated in the case and that the relationship between the petitioner and the de‑facto complainant was consensual in nature and that both parties were already married at the time they entered into the relationship, therefore, contended that the offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is not attracted. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.06.2026 and that the substantial part of the investigation has already been - 4 - completed. Hence, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the allegations against the petitioner are heinous and grievous in nature and that the investigation is still in progress. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 6. In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.06.2026. The record further reveals that both parties were already married when they entered into the relationship. As per the remand case diary, prosecution witnesses LWs.1 to 11, including the investigating officer, have already been examined. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the stage of investigation, the nature of the relationship between the parties and the duration of incarceration, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner‑accused, subject to the following conditions: - 5 - i. The petitioner-accused 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 XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad District.

ii. The petitioner-accused shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday 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-accused shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS). 7. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 15.07.2026 SS - 6 - THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10558 OF 2026 DATE: 15.07.2026 SS