False Promise, Pregnancy, and Denial of Paternity: Telangana High Court Grants Bail Amid Pending DNA Evidence

“Grave Allegations Cannot Eclipse Liberty When Investigation Is Incomplete”, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, through Hon’ble Smt. Justice K. Sujana, delivered an important order while dealing with allegations of sexual exploitation under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court granted bail to the accused who was alleged to have induced a physical relationship on the false promise of marriage, resulting in pregnancy and childbirth, and later denying both marriage and paternity. The ruling highlights how courts weigh serious accusations against the fundamental right to personal liberty at the stage of investigation.

The prosecution case arose from a complaint lodged on 13.01.2026, wherein the complainant alleged that the petitioner, her maternal aunt’s son, persistently pursued her with promises of marriage since her intermediate education. Initially refusing due to her minority, she was later allegedly persuaded on assurances that marriage would follow upon attaining majority.

The complaint narrates that on 04.06.2025, the accused took her to an OYO room and established a physical relationship on the strength of such promise. The relationship continued, and upon missing her menstrual cycle, the accused allegedly reassured her of marriage. However, when she became pregnant, he refused to marry her and went on to dispute the paternity of the child.

At the time of filing the complaint, she was seven months pregnant, and subsequently delivered a male child on 18.02.2026, intensifying the gravity of the allegations.

The central issue before the Court was whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged sexual exploitation under a false promise of marriage, particularly when the consequences included pregnancy and childbirth.

The prosecution strongly opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the conduct of the accused in denying responsibility even after the birth of the child. It was also pointed out that DNA testing, crucial to ascertain paternity, was still pending.

The Court took note of this crucial investigative gap, recording:

“DNA samples have not yet been collected since the child has to attain a minimum age of two months for collection of the sample for conducting DNA analysis.”

On the other hand, the defence stressed prolonged custody since 13.01.2026 and disputed the allegations, asserting false implication.

Justice K. Sujana carefully examined the allegations and the stage of investigation. The Court acknowledged the nature of accusations, observing:

“under the guise of a promise of marriage, he allegedly developed a physical relationship with the de facto complainant… as a result of which she became pregnant and subsequently gave birth to a child”

However, the Court refrained from making any conclusive findings at the bail stage and instead focused on the broader legal principles governing bail.

A decisive factor was the duration of custody and the incomplete status of investigation, particularly the absence of DNA evidence. The Court held:

“considering the period of incarceration of petitioner in jail and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit to grant regular bail”

The bail was granted subject to conditions ensuring the petitioner’s availability for investigation, including regular appearance before the police and compliance with statutory conditions under Section 483(2) BNSS.

This judgment reflects a nuanced approach in bail jurisprudence under the new criminal framework of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. While the allegations involve serious moral and legal questions, the Court underscored that pre-trial detention cannot be indefinite, especially when key evidence like DNA analysis remains pending.

The ruling reinforces that bail is not to be denied as a form of punishment, and even in sensitive cases involving promise of marriage and pregnancy, courts must balance the gravity of allegations with procedural fairness and personal liberty.

Date of Decision: 12/03/2026