lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl hA^^If`^`/ I-I ,I--..._____ _ _ _ _ _ __ ____I . -I Ill,IJII`/+V MONDAY ,THET.vyENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT.- i + THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RS ',_i € CRIMINAL PETITION MOS.I 2485, 2489 & 2490 OF 2O25` £B!nfl±__N A L P E±!±!Q±!±!gi2±gEj2E2Q2§ Between : 'v2 •Jo,f:-.i:..6fg ,ted-;.: Kadem Satyanarayana, c/o Kadem papaiah, R/o- 5-5-333/572, Prashanth Nagar, Vanastalipuram, K.V.Rangareddy, Telangana-500070 PetitI-Oner/Accused AND 1. The State OfAndhra Pradesh, Represented by I-ts public prosecutor High Court BuI'Idings AmaravatI' 2. Yalamarthi satyanarayana, s/o venkaiah,Aged about 45years Allurupadu village ,vatsa.vai mandal, Andhra pradesh Respondent/complainant petition under section 482 of BNSS (438 of Cr.P.C.,) prayI-ng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppoit of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner hereI-n On AnticI-PatOry bail in connection with a crime in FIR.No 97 of 2025 registered on the file of vatsavai police station, NTR District in the event of petitI'Oner arrest £B!!flLINAL PETITION NQ±±§g± Between.I Kadem lndira, W/o K.Satyanarayana, R/o-Plot No.25 Hasthinapuram East, Near Pochamma Temple, Hasthinapuram, saroornagar, Rangareddi, Andhra Pradesh-500079 PetitI-Oner/Accused AND 1. The State ofAndhra pradeshH Represented by lots PublI'C Prosecutor High Court Buildings Amaravati 2. Yalamarthi Satyanarayana, S/o Venkaiah,Aged about 45years Allurupadu village ,VatsaJal mandal, Andhra Pradesh Respondent/Comp[ainant petition under section 482 of BNSS (438 of Cr.P.C,,) praying that in the circumstances stated in the affildavit filed in support Of the Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased tO enlarge the Petitioner herein On Anticipatory bail in connection With a Crime in FIR.No 97 of 2025 registered On the file of vatsavai police station, NTR District in the event Of PetitiOner'S arrest £RIMINAL PETITION NO: 2490 OF 2025_ Betwee n : Kadem Ram Bayamma, ,W/o Kadem Veeraiah, R/o-H.No-3-298, RamNagar, choutuppal Mandal, Choutuppal, Nalgonda, Andhra Pradesh-508252 petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings Amaravati 2. Yalamarthi Satyanarayana, S/o Venkaiah,Aged about 45years Allurupadu village ,Vatsavai mandal, Andhra Pradesh Respondent/Comp[ainant petition under section 482 of BNSS (438 of Cr.P.C.,) praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner herein On Anticipatory bail in connection with a crime in FIR.No 97 of 2025 registered On the file of vatsavai police Station, NTR Distr-let in the event Of PetitiOner'S arrest couNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRl. UMESH CHANDRA P V G couNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: 1) Sl®nce these Criml®nal F'etl'tions are filed, under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha sanhita, 2023 (for short, {BNSS') seeking anticiPatOry bail, by different petitioners i.e., crI.P.No.2485, 2489 and 2490 of 2025 in the same crime viz. crime No.97 of 2025 of Vatsavai poll-ce Station, NTR District, they are being taken up together for disposal by way of this Common Order. 2) A case has been registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short lBNS]). 3) The Prosecution's case, in brief, is that this is a case ofsexual assault under false promises of marriage, which occurred prior to 22.02.2025 and was reported on 22.02.2025 at 23.-00 hrs. The complainant stated that his elder daughter, the victim, has completed her M.S., in the UK, and is currently searching for a job. The accused, K.Bhanu Prakash, residing in uK developed friendship with the Victim and used to visit her room and forcibly enjoyed sexually several times even though the victim denied and asked him to marry, the accused made false promises of marriage to her and enjoyed sexually. The accused began avoiding the vl-ctim, claiml'ng his sisters in the uK disapproved of the marriage. On 14.02.2025, the victim informed her parents about the situation. The complainant assured his daughter he would resolve the I'SSue. On 19.02.2025, the victim and her mother visl'ted vatsavai village, where the victim purchased and consumed herbicide. while returning to Allurupadu, she vomited and told her mother she had ingested poison due to Bhanu Prakash's betrayal. The victim was hospitalized and is in the lcu. The complal'nant gave a statement to the OP Police, which was registered as an FIR. 4) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged offence does not apply to them, as the necessary l'ngredients are not established. The Petitioners reside in India and were unaware of any relationship between the •S `,.I. ,` accused, K. Bhanu prakach, and the vI'Ctim. They have no criminal background, possess permanent residence, and have been served with sectl'on 35(3) of the BNSS notice. The Petitioners have undertaken to cooperate with the l'nv;stigating agency, comply with any conditions imposed, and are ready to appear before the appropriate court. 5) Learned Assistant publl'c Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners. 6) I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their subm,'ssions on par with the contentl'ons presented in the petition as we" as jn the Report. consequently, the contentions presented by the learned counsel need not be reproduced. 7) In «aA,Ipa/ v. Ra/-esA7, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is necessary for the court while considerI'ng a ba" application, to assess whether, based on the evI'dentI'ary record, pr,-ma fac,-e or reasonable grounds exl-st to believe that the accused had committed the crime. 8) A Court doesn't need to give elaborate reasons while granting ba" mainly when the case is at the initial stage, and the allegations of the offences by the accused would not have been crystaIIised as such. ?: . .ln..:ak_esh Baban Borhade vs. state of Maharashtra and another2, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that: ".Arnat!:!pHat^On%, ?I:!I^:o! t_o__b_e:_grant?d as. a rrlatter of rule but should be gt:aan!e,d.,:.n!% l:^h.:,nJ a__cia_:€_ _i: m.a.d?..OJt i;i -ti:' d:;;I;s wc:'nv-i':uc::a i:eat the accused would not misuse his iiiirii. 10) The material on record indicates that the accused, K. Bhanu Prakash, developed a friendship with the victim and enjoyed her sexually multiple times. Despite the vI'CtI'm'S refusals and requests for marriage, the accused made false proml-ses of marriage and enjoyed sexually. 1 (2020)2SCC 118 2 2015 SAR (Criminal) 156 RT± EEEEiE] Subsequently, the accused began avoiding the victim, citing hI-S Sisters in the UK disapproved of the marriage. on 19.02.2025, the victim consumed poison due to Bhanu prakashJs betrayal and was hospitalized, currently in the lou. ll) Based on the material placed on record, at thI'S Stage, I-I Cannot be inferred that there was an accusatI-On against the Petitioners of either a direct or indl'rect act of incitement to the commission of suicide 12) As rightly pointed out by the petitioners' counsel, the Defacto complainant did not make any allegations against the petitioners in the report submitted to the police on 22.02.2025. 13) According to the prosecution's case, the accused, K. Bhanu Prakash, has been living in London, united Kingdom, for the past five years, working as a chef at a pI'ZZa Store. The victl-m J-Oined the same store to assist in the kl'tchen and expedite deliveries, which led to the development of a relationship between them. The PetI-tiOnerS specifically state that they resided in vanastalipuram, saroornagar (Rangareddi) and choutuppaI (Nalgonda District) of Telangana state, and did not II®Ve With Bhanu Prakash during his stay in London or the unl'ted Kingdom. There l's no allegation that the Petitioners were aware of the relationship between Bhanu Prakash and the victim until their relationship became strained. It seems that the petitioners became aware of the relatl'onship when Bhanu Prakash had potent,'al marriage proposals, and they were keen on selecting a bride for him from within their social circle. lt is alleged that they did not approve of the marriage Proposal between the victim and the accused. 14) When a person aI®dS and abets the perpetrator of a crime at the very time, the crime I|S committed, he is a principal of the second degree and section 49 of BNS applies. Even in the suicide note left by the victim, there is no mention that the Petitioners were aware of the relationship between Bhanu Prakash and the victim, nor is there any claim that they aided or abetted this raE=--a. fa B/ relationship through conspir-aey. Even if the Petitioners rejected the marriage Proposal, the PrOViSl'OnS Of Section 69 of BNS cannot be applied to them. 15) The prosecution has not presented prima facie material indicating that the Petitioners actl'vely encouraged or facilitated the relationship between the victim and the accused by making promises to arrange their marriage, without having the intention to fulfill such promises. Based on the material available, there is no clear indication that the petitioners were involved in any manner that would substantiate their participation in the alleged offence. on the other hand, the ingredI-entS Of the Offence under Section 69 of the BNS may be applicable to the accused, Bhanu Prakash, as his actions could potentially align with the necessary ingredients of section 69 of BNS. However, thl-s does not extend to the petitioners, as the material does not support any involvement on their part. 16) In light of the facts presented in this case, there exists considerable uncertainty regarding the applicability of the provisions under section 69 of the BNS to the circumstances at hand. After careful examination, this court is of Prima faCie View that the Petitioners refusal to consent to the marriage between the victim and the accused cannot, I'n and Of itself, serve as a valid ground for the registration of an offence under sectI-On 69 of the BNS. Furthermore, it does not provide sufflcjent legal basis to array the petitioners as accused in the crime regl'stered against the accused, Bhanu Prakash. 17) At this stage, the allegatl-ons against the petitioners are subjected to the trial's outcome. lt is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper with the prosecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. 18) lt is not the Prosecutjon's case that the petitl'oners did not cooperate with the investigation, and they are not available for interrogation. There is no indication of a likelihood that the petitioners would abscond from the ` ``b •_~ d625izEf2 (Z\ 6 jurisdiction of the court. The Petl®tioners have expressed willl-ngness to cooperate with the investigation agency. The object of the bail is nel-ther punitl've nor preventative. The lI-kelihood of levying accusations with the intention of harming or embarrassing the petl.tioners through potential arrest is not improbable. 19) Given the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the prjma facie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, this court views that even if the petI'tiOnerS are granted pre'-arrest bail, there cannot be any apprehension for the prosecutI-On that they will tamper with the evidence. The material placed on record discloses that the petitioners have a permanent abode. The facts do not warrant custodial interrogation of the petitioners in the nature of the accusations. Granting antl-cipatory ba" to the petI-tiOnerS WOuld not impede the ongoing investigation. Hence, if the petI'tiOnerS Were released on bail by imposing condI'tiOnS, it WOuld Safeguard the interest of the prosecutl®on and it would meet the ends of justice. 20) Upon careful review of the available materI-aI, as there l's no rI-Sk Of interference with the ongoing investigation by the petitioners, this court finds that anticI'PatOry bail can be granted to the petitioners under certain conditions.I i) Petl'tioners are directed to surrender before the station House Officer, Vatsavi Police Station, NTR DistrI-Ct, WI-thin two (2) weeks from today. On such surrender, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties of the like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. if) The Petitioners shall cooperate wl'th the ihvestigatl-on and they shall make themselves available for l'nterrogation by a police officer as and when required, and they shall not, directly or --ed c.~ 8# \, \\ '' I- 7 l'ndirectly, make any., l'nducement, threat or promise to any person acqual-nted with the facts of the case so as to dl-ssuade them from dl-sclosI-ng such facts to the court or to any poII'Ce officer. 21) It is explicl'tly clarified that the observations made in thI-S Order are preliminary and pertain solely to the decision on the present application wl'thout jndicatl'ng a stance on the case's merl'ts. The lnvestI'gatjng Agency is affirmed to have the freedom to investl-gate wI'thOut being influenced by the observatI-OnS in this Order. 22) Accordingly, the criminal petitions are a//owed. Ml'scellaneous applicatlons pendl'ng, lf any, In these Crl-minaI PetI-tl-OnS, shall stand closed. sD/-P.VINOb KUMAR ASSISTANT lSTRAR /ITRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Fo Tol 1. The Station House offiICer, Vatsavai Police Station, NTR District 2. Yalamarthi Satyanarayana, S/o Venkaiah,Aged about 45years Allurupadu V'IIIage ,Vatsa.vai mandal, Andhra Pradesh (by RPAD) 3. One CC to SRI. UMESH CHANDRA P V G Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofA.P[OUT] 5. One spare copy Fr. p* € i;€ ir+..:..+E_ HIGH COURT TIVIR,J DATED :24/03/2025 BAIL ORDER CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 2485, 2489 & 2490 OF 2025 ALLOWED aenggiv*¢;