The Telangana High Court has upheld the bail cancelation of a man booked for sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, holding that the allegations of threatening and physically assaulting the complainant after being released prima facie reveal misuse of liberty.

The petitioner was arrested for offences under Sections 69(sexual intercourse through deceitful means),115(2), and 351(2) r/w Section 3(5) BNS. He was granted bail by the trial court in February 2026, with conditions such as that he shall not threaten or induce witnesses. However, in May 2026, the complainant-survivor filed a plea for cancellation of bail granted to the accused, alleging that the petitioner violated the bail conditions.

Section 69 states that whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, and has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

The single judge bench of Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, while upholding the trial court order, observed that the accused had engaged in conduct that was not conducive to 'fair trial', as repeatedly held in apex court precedents.

"While talking with her, he stated that he had already released from jail and abused her with vulgar language and he told her that he will post her private photographs and videos on social media and started calling his members for which she got fear and she left for the nearest police station and when she reached near Erramanzil, RNTS Building, the petitioner attacked physically by beating her on hands, pressed her neck and kicked on legs and called his brothers. He along with his brothers abused her and threatened her and the petitioner tried to kill her by pressing her neck, they left the place as she called the police.

The said allegations prima facie reveal that the petitioner has misused the liberty granted to him and committed similar offences of Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS against respondent No.2 and violated the terms and conditions imposed by the learned trial Court in the order dated 23.02.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.96 of 2026. The learned trial Court taking into consideration the above said facts had rightly passed the impugned order dated 07.10.2026 and cancelled the bail granted in favour of the petitioner".

The court noted that the Supreme Court had elaborated the circumstances in which bail granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. may be cancelled, including when the accused engages in similar criminal activity post-bail, violates the conditions imposed, or evades the control of the sureties.

It observed that the principles are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on the ground that the petitioner has violated the bail conditions by contacting, threatening, and inducing the victim and committed similar offences against respondent No.2 and misused the liberty granted to him.

According to her complaint, the petitioner had called her and threatened to publish her private photographs and videos on social media. After a week, the petitioner and his brothers allegedly abused, and physically assaulted her after inducing her to come outside.

Following this, a fresh FIR was registered against the petitioner at Panjagutta Police Station under Sections 115(2), 126(2), and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS. Thereafter, the trial court cancelled the bail on October 7, 2026 by allowing the survivor's plea, which led the accused to approach the High Court.

Adv. Jayaraj Joel Babu Raidu, appearing for the petitioner-accused, argued that the subsequent complaint was filed by the complainant with false allegations to harass him. He pointed out the delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR without any cogent reason, since the alleged incident occurred on May 14 2026.

According to the petitioner, the complainant had taken inconsistent stands in her complaint, as well as the bail cancellation plea.

However, the respondent counsel contended that, after being released on bail, he had called the complainant in the first week of May, threatening to post her private photos and videos on social media. Due to the threats, when the complainant went to his office at Somajiguda to talk, the petitioner allegedly abused her verbally, followed by physical assault.

About the alleged delay in registration of FIR, the survivor said that she lodged a complaint at Khairatabad Police Station initially, and received treatment at Gandhi Hospital the next day for her injuries. The complaint was later transferred to Panjagutta Police Station due to jurisdictional issues, the complainant pointed out.

After hearing both parties, the High Court observed that the specific allegations made by respondent-survivor that the petitioner threatened her on May 7, and physically assaulted her on May 14 after being released on bail, prima facie revealed that the he had 'misused the liberty granted to him'.

The Court also rejected the petitioner's argument about the delay in lodging the FIR, noting that the complainant had immediately approached the Khairatabad Police Station and taken medical treatment at Gandhi Hospital the following day.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgments in Abdul Basit v. Abdul Kadir Choudhary[2014] and Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh[2025], the Court iterated that bail can be cancelled if the accused engaged in similar criminal activity after bail, or interferes with the investigation, or threatens the witnesses.

The court further opined that the petitioner had committed a similar offence for which he was initially granted bail, and violated the specific bail condition not to threaten the complainant.

“…For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 07.10.2026 passed by the learned trial Court to exercise the powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS. “, the court concluded.