- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11529 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SARATH CHANDRA PARUPALLI SON OF SRI. VEERABHADRA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT S-16, GOLDEN ORCHID APARTMENTS, CDE LOCK, SHANTHALA NAGAR, ASHOKNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, FOR SRI. KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R. RANGASWAMY, HCGP; SMT. RAMA R. IYER, ADVOCATE FOR DEFACTO COMPLAINANT (THROUGH VC)) Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (U/S 483 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO ORDER THE RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.151/2025 OF THE CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 118(1), 127(2), 318(4), 351(1), 3(5), 351(2), 352 AND 69 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER The petitioner/accused No.1 has preferred this petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail in Crime No.151/2025 registered by Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru. 2. FIR is registered for offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 127(2), 318(4), 351(1), 351(2), 352, 69 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against accused Nos.1 to 5. Petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.1. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 3. The complaint is lodged by one Shaheena Attarwala, daughter of Mohammad Yunus Maksood Ahmed Attarwala, on 14.07.2025. Based on the said complaint, the above crime came to be registered. 4. Petitioner was arrested on 14.07.2025. He has been in judicial custody since then. His bail petition in Crl.Misc.No.6094/2025 came to be rejected by the learned LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Special Judge, Bengaluru, vide order dated 30.07.2025. Hence, this petition. 5. The averments in the complaint are that, complainant, a permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh and employed as a Product Designer with Microsoft at Hyderabad, had created a matrimonial profile after her divorce in 2016. In January 2024 the petitioner/accused No.1, introducing himself as a divorcee, contacted her through a matrimonial platform and thereafter, met her at Hyderabad. On the assurance that he would marry her, he - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 induced her into physical relations in March 2024. It is further averred that in May 2024 the petitioner demanded money for his business requirements and on believing him, the complainant liquidated her mutual funds and transferred a sum of about Rs.10 lakhs to the account of Myvear Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Further, in July 2024, petitioner brought the complainant to Bengaluru, where they initially resided at Sterling Apartments, Lavelle Road, and subsequently at Golden Orchid Apartments, Kasturba Road, living together as husband and wife. 6. It is alleged that, at the instance of the petitioner, complainant applied for and obtained personal loans from different banks to the tune of Rs.1,40,55,557/- and transferred the same in installments to the personal account of the petitioner, to the accounts of his company, to the account of one Rajeshwari Rutnal(accused No.4) , an employee in his office, and also to the account of his father. In all, she claims to have been cheated of nearly Rs.83 lakhs in form of hand loans and about Rs.1.40 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 crores obtained as loans from her various bank accounts. It is further alleged that on 13.09.2024 the petitioner, under the influence of alcohol, assaulted her by hitting with a remote and by kicking her on the stomach. Again, on 14.06.2025, he allegedly assaulted her by pouring water on her and attempting to hit her with a liquor bottle. She has alleged that the petitioner falsely represented that he has divorced his first wife and, on the pretext of marriage, induced her into physical relationship and it also alleged that petitioner along with his driver Srinivas Aluwal(accused No.5) and the said Rajeshwari Rutnal(accused No.4), wrongfully confined her in a room. It is further alleged that his father, Sri Veerabhadra Rao Parupalli(accused No.2) took money from her, and that one Advocate Bhavani Prakash induced her into believing that an agreement would be executed for repayment of money, which was never paid. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 7. Heard the Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, Learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and the learned counsel for Defacto-Complainant. 8. The Learned counsel for Petitioner would contend that as per complaint, the complainant was residing with the Petitioner at his residence and despite alleging that she came to know about his marriage in September, 2024, and further alleging that she was subjected to abuse and assault on several occasions since then, continued to reside with him till July, 2025, which demonstrates that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature. 9. Learned Counsel has further contended that the complaint itself avers that by March, 2024, the complainant and the Petitioner had entered into a romantic relationship, commenced cohabitation, and engaged in sexual relations. The allegations regarding offences under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 are said to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 arise only thereafter. However, even after September, 2024, when according to her she learnt that the Petitioner was married, she admittedly continued to live with him. Being an educated and mature woman, already divorced once and a law graduate, the complainant could not have been under any misconception in that regard. More importantly, there is no specific averment in the complaint that the Petitioner ever refused to marry her and therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 69 BNS are not attracted. He further contended that there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than one and a half years in setting the criminal law in motion. The complaint contains contradictions, inconsistencies and interpolations, such as references to the Petitioner as “accused No.1” within its text, thereby casting doubt on its veracity. The explanation offered by the complainant that she could not initiate action earlier owing to language difficulties is wholly untenable, particularly when the complaint itself is in English. It is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 contended that the complainant has not produced any medical record to substantiate allegations of physical assault or grievous hurt. Though she claims mental trauma, no supporting material is produced. On the other hand, the complaint itself discloses that the Petitioner was maintaining her, paying her EMIs, meeting her living expenses, and even making her a Director in his company. These circumstances, it is urged, militate against any allegation of cheating or dishonest inducement. 10. Learned Counsel would also submit that though the complainant avers that she advanced large sums of money, the same were not gratuitous but were in the nature of financial assistance and loans voluntarily extended by her, and that there is no whisper in the complaint of any initial fraudulent or dishonest intent on the part of the Petitioner. At best, the dispute is of a civil nature. The offences under Sections 69, 118 and 318 BNS have been mechanically incorporated without the complaint disclosing the necessary ingredients. The arrest - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 of the Petitioner is also alleged to be in violation of constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1). The Petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, has roots in society, and is not likely to abscond. He has no criminal antecedents and undertakes to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court, co-operate with investigation, and face trial in the event of filing of a charge sheet. 11. Per contra, Learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the petition and contended that the complaint, read as a whole, clearly discloses grave offences under Sections 69, 118, 127, 318, 351 and 352 of the BNS, 2023. It is contended that the Petitioner, while already being married, deliberately concealed his subsisting marriage and induced the complainant into a relationship, cohabitation and physical intimacy, thereby attracting the ingredients of Section 69 BNS. It is further contended that the complainant has specifically narrated several incidents of assault and abuse between September, 2024 and July, 2025, including physical - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 violence, forcible sexual intercourse and coercive conduct by the Petitioner, which constitute distinct offences under Sections 351(1), 351(2) and 352 BNS. The absence of immediate medical evidence cannot by itself be a ground to disbelieve the allegations, particularly when they are consistent and supported by circumstantial details in the complaint. Learned HCGP would also contend that the Petitioner has misappropriated huge amounts advanced by the complainant, under the pretext of business requirements and personal needs, and the same amounting to cheating and criminal breach of trust attracts the rigour of Section 118 BNS. The allegations that the complainant’s finances were drained, including towards EMI payments and business investments, clearly point to dishonest inducement from inception. 12. It is also contended that the allegation of the complainant having been made Director in the Petitioner’s company was only a facade to secure her confidence while simultaneously misusing her funds. The submissions of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 Petitioner that the relationship was consensual are belied by the specific averments that he repeatedly assaulted and humiliated the complainant, even in the presence of others, and threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed his marital status or demanded return of her money. He further highlighted that the delay in filing the complaint has been explained by the complainant as being due to her vulnerable position, her dependence on the Petitioner, and her hope of settlement, which cannot be taken as fatal to the prosecution case. The references to “accused No.1” in the complaint are only a matter of drafting style and not an interpolation. Having regard to the nature of the offences, the huge financial stakes involved, and the serious allegations of abuse and coercion, it is contended that the Petitioner, if enlarged on bail, is likely to tamper with prosecution witnesses, intimidate the complainant, and obstruct the course of investigation. Hence, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 13. Learned counsel for the defacto-complainant has strongly opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner is accused of committing serious offences involving financial exploitation, physical assaults, emotional abuse and even desecration of a religious text. It is urged that the complainant, who was once financially independent and emotionally strong, has been reduced to a state of trauma, both physically and emotionally, as a result of the acts of the petitioner. The gravity of the allegations and their impact on the complainant’s well- being are such that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. It is further contended that the petitioner is an influential individual engaged in large infrastructure contracts with public authorities, including projects of substantial value. He is said to enjoy political patronage and to have attempted, through intermediaries, to interfere with the present investigation. If enlarged on bail, the petitioner would have every opportunity to use his influence and resources to intimidate the complainant - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 and tamper with material evidence. It is further alleged that the petitioner desecrated the Holy Quran while it was in her hands, which caused her deep emotional and spiritual trauma. These acts, it is submitted, robbed her not only of her financial independence but also of her dignity, faith and stability. Counsel for the complainant has further contended that the petitioner employed operatives to track and control the complainant, which raises a real apprehension that similar surveillance and intimidation would continue if he is released on bail. The repeated instances of cruelty, threats to circulate private photographs, and threats of lodging false complaints clearly indicate a strong likelihood of the petitioner continuing such conduct if released. 14. It is also urged that the allegations disclose systematic financial exploitation. Substantial amounts were extracted from the complainant, loans were diverted, and funds were channelled into the petitioner’s business and family accounts. The magnitude of the amounts and - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 the involvement of the petitioner’s associates show a structured economic offence. The complainant has specifically named the petitioner’s father, driver, accountant and other associates as having participated in the misappropriation of funds and in acts of coercion. This demonstrates that the alleged offences are not isolated acts but part of an organized pattern of criminal conduct. If the petitioner is granted bail, it would enable him to coordinate with such persons, influence them and obstruct the ongoing investigation. Prima facie materials such as loan documents, bank transactions, witness accounts and medical records lend support to the complainant’s case and cannot be disregarded at this preliminary stage. It is further contended that the allegations, taken as a whole, disclose multiple serious offences including cheating, breach of trust, assault, wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation. Granting bail on the basis of the petitioner’s bare denials would, it is urged, amount to a miscarriage of justice. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 15. It is also contended that although specific allegations are made against several other accused, including members of the petitioner’s family and employees, the charge sheet has been selectively filed only against the petitioner, while investigation is shown as pending against others. It is submitted that this appears to be a deliberate tactic to project completion of investigation and thereby facilitate bail for the petitioner. Such selective filing, while keeping investigation pending, is impermissible and if the petitioner is released at this stage, there exists a grave risk of his influencing or coercing witnesses and tampering with evidence. 16. It is the case of prosecution that accused No.1, a native of Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, shifted to Bengaluru in mid-2024. Though married in 2015, he is alleged to have lured CW-1 in December 2023 through a Matrimonial App, assuring her that he had divorced his wife and would marry her. Believing this, CW-1, who was employed in Google at Hyderabad, resigned her job in July - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 2024 and moved to Bengaluru, where she resided with accused No.1 and was subjected to repeated sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage. It is further alleged that accused Nos.1 and 4 conspired to extract money from CW-1. On their inducement, CW-1 raised substantial loans in July 2024—`70 lakhs from ICICI Bank, `15.55 lakhs from IDFC Bank, `30 lakhs from Axis Bank, `24.96 lakhs against her mutual funds, besides withdrawing her own investments of `49.68 lakhs and cash savings of about `20 lakhs. In total, the accused are alleged to have misappropriated about `2.4 Crores, which was diverted into the accounts of accused Nos.1 and 2, their companies, and towards repayment of liabilities of firms connected to them. Thereafter, accused No.1 is alleged to have subjected CW-1 to physical and mental cruelty. He allegedly assaulted her on several occasions, abused her in filthy language, threatened that being a Muslim woman nobody would question even if she were killed, and further threatened to implicate her family in - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 false terrorism cases. On 30.04.2025, accused No.1 allegedly stripped CW-1, tied her hair, poured water on her, and assaulted her, besides desecrating the Holy Quran belonging to her. Again, on 14.06.2025, he is alleged to have dragged her by the hair and inflicted injuries, as a result of which she left the house and obtained treatment at Chinmaya Hospital, Indiranagar. Further, prosecution alleges that, accused No.1, even before obtaining divorce from his first wife, induced CW-1 into a relationship on false promise of marriage, repeatedly exploited her sexually, misappropriated her money to the tune of `2.4 Crores with the active involvement of co-accused, and subjected her to physical assault, threats, and religious insult. 17. It is averred that the petitioner, by misrepresenting that he had divorced his first wife, induced the complainant into a physical relationship on the assurance of marriage. It is further alleged that, acting on such assurance, the complainant liquidated her - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 investments and raised loans to the tune of nearly `Rs.2.4 crores, which were transferred to the petitioner, his family members, and his business entities. Allegations are also made of physical assaults on 13.09.2024 and 14.06.2025, of wrongful confinement with the aid of his driver and employee, and of emotional abuse including desecration of a religious text. 18. The materials relied upon by the prosecution are largely documentary in nature bank transfers, loan records, and corporate documents etc., which are already in the custody of the investigating agency. At this stage, this court is not called upon to conduct a detailed appreciation of the evidence. The complainant herself admits that she continued to reside with the petitioner till July 2025, despite allegedly coming to know of his marital status as early as September 2024 and despite alleging acts of physical abuse in 2024 itself. The consensual nature of the relationship, the complainant’s educational qualifications and prior marital experience, and her - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 continued cohabitation with the petitioner, prima facie cast some doubt on the allegation of inducement by false promise of marriage. 19. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 14.07.2025. The investigation qua him is substantially complete and a charge sheet has already been filed against him. The contention of the complainant that investigation is pending against other accused persons cannot, by itself, justify indefinite detention of the petitioner, particularly when the allegations against him are supported primarily by documentary evidence that is already collected. 20. This Court also notes that no medical evidence has been produced to substantiate the allegation of grievous assault. While the complainant has made allegations of wrongful confinement and emotional abuse, these are matters which are to be established in a full- fledged trial and cannot be conclusively determined at the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 stage of bail. The delay of more than one year in lodging the complaint, though explained by the complainant, is nevertheless a factor which this Court cannot altogether ignore. 21. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, has no criminal antecedents, and has expressed willingness to abide by any stringent conditions imposed by this Court. 22. In these circumstances, the apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses can be sufficiently safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the following: ORDER I. Petition is allowed. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 II. Petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.151/2025 of Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru City, subject to following conditions: 1. He shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with two sureties, out of which, one shall be a local surety, for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. He shall furnish proof of his residential address and shall inform the Court, if there is change in the address. 3. He shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 4. He shall not intimidate, threaten or influence the defacto-complainant either directly or indirectly and indulge himself in committing any offence. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38332 CRL.P No. 11529 of 2025 5. He shall appear before the trial Court regularly on all dates of hearing, unless exempted from appearing for genuine reasons. Violation of any of the condition shall result in cancellation of bail. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29