Hyderabad: Telangana high court has refused to interfere with a trial court order cancelling the bail of a man accused of rape, holding that he violated his bail conditions by contacting, threatening and inducing the survivor, committing similar offences against her.Justice J Sreenivas Rao passed the order recently while dismissing a criminal petition filed by Banoth Rahul, a 28-year-old private bank employee from Warangal district.A criminal case was booked against Rahul at the Miyapur police station for allegedly sexually exploiting his friend on the pretext of marriage. However, after being released on bail, he allegedly threatened and assaulted the survivor, warning that he would circulate her private videos on social media platforms.Following this, she lodged another case against him and also secured cancellation of his bail by the trial court. Challenging the bail cancellation, Rahul approached high court.In the order, Justice Sreenivas Rao noted the principles laid down by Supreme Court on cancellation of bail, including post-bail similar criminal activity, violation of conditions or evasion of sureties, and held that they applied to the case because Rahul had “violated the bail conditions by contacting, threatening, and inducing the victim” and “misused the liberty granted to him”.Arrested in Jan 2026, Rahul was granted bail on Feb 23 on conditions, including not threatening witnesses. According to the survivor, after coming out on bail, Rahul phoned her, claimed to have her private photographs and videos, and threatened to post them online.She alleged that he and his brothers abused and assaulted her near Panjagutta, following which a fresh case was registered at the Panjagutta police station. Based on this case, the trial court cancelled his bail on Oct 7.Rahul argued that the cancellation rested only on a subsequent case registered after the sexual assault case, and that the complaint was filed after a delay without explanation. He further alleged that no CCTV footage, call records or independent evidence supporting the allegations were produced.Meanwhile, the survivor and the prosecution countered that specific allegations were made and that the trial court gave cogent reasons while cancelling the bail.High court held that the delay and authenticity of documents would be examined during investigation, as the petition’s scope was limited to the validity of the cancellation. It found the apex court rulings, relied on by the petitioner, inapplicable because bail was not cancelled merely on registration of a later case, and irrelevant as case delay was not in issue.
