Telangana HC Flags Misuse of Rape Laws, Grants Bail Noting Woman’s Pattern of False Complaints

The Telangana High Court has taken a firm stand on the misuse of rape laws, granting anticipatory bail in a case where the complainant was shown to have repeatedly filed false sexual assault complaints.

A man accused of rape moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail after being named in Crime No. 379 of 2025 at Moinabad Police Station, Cyberabad.

The petition was heard by Justice K. Sujana, who allowed the plea on September 10, 2025.

While doing so, the court expressly recorded that “the complainant is a habitual complainant and filed similar false complaints against many other innocent persons and Haryana police had filed criminal cases against the complainant herein for the offences of extortion.”

The case arose when the complainant lodged an FIR alleging that she was initially approached with a job offer through a consultancy, after which the petitioner established contact with her. According to her version, she was pressured to meet despite her refusal, and on one such occasion was taken in a car along with another woman who encouraged the petitioner to pursue a relationship with her.

She alleged that she was then drugged at Cable Bridge in Hyderabad, rendered partially unconscious, and subsequently sexually assaulted through the night in an isolated location.

The complainant further stated that she was promised permanent employment, subjected to blackmail involving fabricated termination letters, and coerced for money by threats that the petitioner had debts exceeding one crore rupees.

She also alleged that he had similarly deceived other women and committed financial fraud.

On the basis of these allegations, the police registered a case against the petitioner under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to the offence of rape.

During the investigation, the prosecution opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, contending that the charges were grave and the nature of the alleged offence was heinous, thereby warranting custody of the accused.

The petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the case was a continuation of a pattern where the complainant had misused the law to harass innocent men. It was argued that she had filed multiple similar cases in the past, and even the Haryana Police had initiated criminal proceedings against her for extortion.

The defence stressed that the allegations were fabricated to exploit legal provisions for personal gain and harassment.

As per findings of the Court, the records placed for evaluation included history of earlier cases filed by the complainant, falsely implicating several other men on similar allegations. It was also brought to the court's attention that she was a married woman and had simultaneously initiated proceedings before the Family Court in Gurugram. After assessing these circumstances, the court held that while the alleged offence under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was serious, the complainant's history of false complaints and criminal antecedents weighed in favour of granting relief to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal petition and directed the accused to surrender before the Special Sessions Judge for Fast Track cases relating to atrocities against women-cum-XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, within two weeks.

On surrender, the trial court was ordered to release him on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties.

The court further imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to appear before the concerned Station House Officer every Wednesday for eight weeks and thereafter as and when required, and to cooperate fully with the investigation.

The ruling gains significance in light of earlier judicial findings about the same complainant. In 2022, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had rejected her bail plea in a different case after noting that she had filed nine FIRs against various men in just over a year, several of which were proven false. The court in that case had described her conduct as part of an extortion racket and stressed that she was in the habit of threatening men and their families with false rape allegations to extort money.

By acknowledging this background and expressly recording the complainant’s history of filing false complaints, the Telangana High Court reinforced a larger judicial concern.

Courts have consistently held that rape laws are vital to protect genuine victims, but when repeatedly misused, they undermine the justice system and erode the credibility of authentic complaints.

Counsel for the Petitioner: S. Nalini Reddy, Adv.

Counsel for the Respondent: D. Arun Kumar, APP

Case Title: Bodda Girish v. State of Telangana

Bench: Justice K. Sujana

Date of Order: September 10, 2025