Allowed

Boda Sonilal Nayak @ Sonylal Nayak v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Sept 2026CRLP/14249/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS. Finding no material to suggest the petitioner would abscond or tamper with evidence, the court held that custodial arrest was not necessary and ordered bail subject to strict conditions regarding appearance, cooperation, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions: surrender by 24.09.2026, periodic appearance before IO, full cooperation with investigation, and strict compliance with Section 482(2) of BNSS.

Boda Sonilal Nayak @ Sonylal Nayak Vs the State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶3

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14249 OF 2026

¶4

(CNR No. HBHC010597602026)

¶5

DATE: 09.09.2026

¶6

Between :

¶7

Bodda Sonilal Nayak @ Sonylal Nayak

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana

¶11

… Respondent

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail.

¶14

The petitioner is arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No.196 of

¶15

2026 on the file of Bhadrachalam Town Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

¶16

Heard Mr. S. Surender Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and

¶17

Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

¶18

representing the respondent -State.

¶19

¶20

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner devoleped a physical relationship with the de facto complainant, who is a married woman and has a child and, according to the allegations, was living separately from her husband. It is alleged that the petitioner continued the said relationship by inducing the de facto complainant to believe that he would marry her and, in the course thereof, exploited her financially by inducing her to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs in installments and by receiving valuable gifts from her. It is further alleged that, subsequently, the petitioner refused to marry her and also failed to return the amount allegedly paid by her or the valuable gifts received by him. Basing on the said allegations, a Zero FIR was registered at Sukma Police Station, Sukma District, Chhattisgarh, and the same was thereafter transferred to Bhadrachalam Town Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, for investigation.

¶21

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not make out the offences alleged against him. It is submitted that, admittedly, the de facto complainant is a married woman, is working as a Government teacher and has a child. Further, no decree of divorce has been obtained by her and, therefore, her marriage continues to subsist. Learned counsel would submit

¶22

¶23

that the de facto complainant, being adult, married, a teacher and worldlywise person, could not have legitimately entertained an expectation of marriage with the petitioner during the subsistence of her existing marriage. It is, therefore, contended that the allegation that her consent to the physical relationship was obtained on account of a misconception of fact arising out of a promise of marriage is, prima facie, untenable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶24

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations regarding payment of Rs.2 lakhs in installments and the alleged handing over of several valuable gifts are not supported, at this stage, by any particulars or material placed on record. It is also contended that, in the circumstances, the alleged promise of marriage cannot, by itself, furnish a basis for invoking Sections 69 and 318(4) of the BNS. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is a permanent resident, has roots in society, is willing to cooperate with the investigation and undertakes to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶25

6.1. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State opposes the petition. It is submitted that the complaint contains specific allegations against the petitioner that he induced the de facto complainant, on the promise of marriage, to continue a physical

¶26

¶27

relationship with him and, in the process, subjected her to both physical and financial exploitation.

¶28

6.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is presently at a nascent stage and that the de facto complainant has already been examined by the investigating agency. It is further submitted that, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the stage of investigation, the presence of the petitioner may be necessary for the purpose of effective investigation. It is, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.

¶30

The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that, on the promise of marriage, he induced the de facto complainant to continue a physical relationship with him and, in the process, physically and financially exploited her. At the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to meticulously examine the evidence or record definitive findings on disputed questions of fact. The Court is required to make a prima facie assessment of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the petitioner, his likelihood of cooperating with the investigation, the possibility of his absconding or tampering with

¶31

¶32

evidence, and the necessity for custodial interrogation. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS has to be exercised judiciously by balancing the petitioner's right to personal liberty with the requirement of a fair, effective and unhindered investigation.

¶33

It is equally well settled that mere failure to fulfil a promise of marriage does not, by itself, establish that the promise was false from its inception. For such a promise to constitute a misconception of fact, there must be prima facie material indicating that it was made without intention to honour it and with the object of inducing the woman to enter into the physical relationship. Whether the said ingredients are ultimately established is a matter for investigation and trial and need not be conclusively determined at the stage of anticipatory bail.

¶34

In the present case, this Court has considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the age of the petitioner and the de facto complainant, and the admitted subsistence of the complainant's marriage. The subsistence of the marriage is a relevant circumstance while assessing the allegation of the alleged promise of marriage; nevertheless, this Court refrains from recording any conclusive finding regarding the voluntariness of the relationship or whether the alleged promise was false from its inception, leaving those questions open for investigation and trial.

¶35

¶36

Though the investigation is at a nascent stage, the de facto complainant has already been examined. The petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, has a permanent place of residence, and no specific material has been placed before this Court to indicate that he is likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or otherwise obstruct the investigation. Further, no specific circumstance has been demonstrated by the prosecution to establish that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for an effective investigation. A mere assertion of the need for custodial interrogation, without indicating the specific investigative purpose necessitating such custody, cannot by itself warrant denial of anticipatory bail.

¶37

Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the ultimate culpability of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that custodial arrest is not shown to be necessary at this stage. The interests of a fair and effective investigation can adequately be protected by imposing appropriate conditions to secure the petitioner’s availability and cooperation and to prevent interference with the investigation.

¶38

For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions.

¶39

¶40

(A) The petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Bhadrachalam Town Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District on or before 24.09.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release his on bail on execution of 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 said officer.

¶41

(B) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of his release on bail or until the filing of the final result, whichever is earlier.

¶42

(C) The petitioner shall remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation.

¶43

(D) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation.

¶44

(E) The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶45

¶46

(F) The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

¶47

(G) Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings before the court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

¶48

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶49

______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J

¶50

Date: 09.09.2026 CHS

¶51

¶52

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶53

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14249 OF 2026

¶54

DATE: 09.09.2026

¶55

CHS

Boda Sonilal Nayak @ Sonylal Nayak v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boda Sonilal Nayak @ Sonylal Nayak v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases