1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused in FIR No.917 of 2026 on the file of L.B. Nagar police station, Ranga Reddy District for the offence punishable under Section 137(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard M/s. Nomula Katyayani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a report stating that her 17-year-old daughter/victim, who was studying Intermediate 2nd Year, left the house on the morning of 08.07.2026 to attend college but did not return home in the evening. The complainant stated that, despite making enquiries and searching for her daughter in the neighbourhood and at the houses of relatives and acquaintances, she could not trace her. It is further alleged that she suspected the petitioner/accused of having lured her daughter away, as she had recently come to know that the petitioner had allegedly been following her daughter. According to the complainant, a village panchayat was convened in that regard, wherein the elders allegedly warned the petitioner not to follow her daughter. Based on the complaint and the suspicion expressed therein, the present crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated solely on the basis of the suspicion entertained by the de facto complainant, without there being any credible material connecting him with the alleged offence. He submits that no overt act is attributed to the petitioner in the complaint and that the allegations are unsupported by any eyewitness account, electronic evidence, call records, messages, or other incriminating material. It is further submitted that the alleged missing girl returned home safely on the very same day, thereby negating any prolonged disappearance or allegation of wrongful confinement and rendering custodial interrogation wholly unnecessary. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident with deep roots in society, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the process of law. He submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

               5.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the arrest of the petitioner would seriously prejudice his education, reputation, and personal liberty. Placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, he submits that the petitioner’s personal liberty ought to be protected and that his unnecessary arrest should be avoided. On the aforesaid grounds, learned Counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that the crime was initially registered for the offence under Section 137(2) of the BNS, and that, during the course of investigation, based on the statement of the victim, offences under Section 64(1) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the “POCSO Act”) were also incorporated. It is submitted that the petitioner is the sole accused and that the investigation is at a crucial stage. The statements of L.Ws.1 to 6 have already been recorded, and a requisition has been made for recording the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS.

               6.2. According to the prosecution, the victim became acquainted with the accused approximately two years prior through Instagram and telephone calls. During the course of such acquaintance, the accused allegedly professed his love for the victim and promised to marry her. It is further alleged that, on 25.02.2026, after the victim had completed her Intermediate First Year practical examination, the accused took her to his house and, on the pretext of talking to her and promising to marry her, had sexual intercourse with her before dropping her back at her home. The prosecution further alleges that, after the victim informed the accused that she had missed her menstrual periods, he brought a pregnancy test kit for her. Although the test allegedly returned a positive result, the accused is stated to have assured the victim that the test might be inaccurate. It is further alleged that, on 08.07.2026, the accused took the victim on his motorcycle to his native village and returned with her only at about 1:00 a.m. on the following day. During this period, he allegedly did not respond to the telephone calls made by the victim’s mother. It is the further submission of the prosecution that the victim is presently about four months pregnant and that, in view of the allegations disclosed during the investigation, the aforesaid additional offences were incorporated. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, having regard to the gravity and nature of the allegations, the present stage of the investigation, and the possible requirement of custodial interrogation, prays for dismissal of the petition.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

8. It is evident from the record that, initially, the crime was registered under Section 137(2) of the BNS on the basis of the suspicion expressed by the de facto complainant regarding the alleged disappearance of her minor daughter. However, during the course of investigation, the victim was traced, and in her statement she allegedly disclosed that the petitioner had developed a relationship with her and, on the promise of marriage, subjected her to sexual intercourse on 25.02.2026. She further stated that the petitioner accompanied her to his native village on 08.07.2026. Based on the material that emerged during the investigation, the sections of law were accordingly altered.

9. As per the prosecution, the investigation is still in progress and the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS is yet to be recorded. The prosecution also asserts that the victim is presently about four months pregnant. The power under Section 482 of the BNSS, being an extraordinary jurisdiction, has to be exercised having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the necessity for custodial interrogation, the likelihood of the accused absconding or influencing witnesses, and the larger interests of a fair and effective investigation. The principles governing the exercise of such jurisdiction have been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694.

10. At the same time, the grant of anticipatory bail necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, and the Court is required to strike an appropriate balance between the protection of individual liberty and the legitimate interests of the investigation. In the present case, the allegations contained in the material collected during investigation, read with the statement attributed to the victim, prima facie disclose allegations of sexual assault upon a child attracting the provisions of the POCSO Act.

11. At the stage of consideration of an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or determine the truthfulness of the allegations. The limited consideration is whether the material placed before the Court discloses a prima facie case warranting interference with the investigative process. The subsequent statement of the victim, recorded during the course of investigation, constitutes relevant investigative material and cannot be disregarded merely on the ground that the initial complaint was founded upon suspicion.

12. The contention of the petitioner that the victim returned home on the same day, by itself, does not dilute the subsequent allegations regarding sexual intercourse with the minor or the alleged repeated sexual exploitation resulting in pregnancy. Similarly, the absence of criminal antecedents, the petitioner’s status as a permanent resident, his educational qualifications, and his willingness to cooperate with the investigation are relevant considerations; however, in the facts of the present case, those circumstances cannot, by themselves, outweigh the nature and gravity of the allegations involving offences under the POCSO Act. It is also significant that the investigation is still at a nascent stage, the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS is yet to be recorded, and further scientific and other relevant evidence is required to be collected and examined. These circumstances assume significance while considering the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail, particularly in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Though in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized safeguards against unnecessary arrest, such safeguards cannot be mechanically applied without regard to the nature of the allegations and the circumstances of the case, particularly where serious allegations of sexual offences against a minor under the POCSO Act are under investigation.

13. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the statement of the victim implicating the petitioner, the allegation regarding the victim’s pregnancy, and the fact that the investigation is still in progress, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not warrant exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The interests of a fair and effective investigation, at this stage, outweigh the grounds urged by the petitioner for extending the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.

14. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is, therefore, dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.