1 APHC010120362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2569/2025 Between: Batchu Venu Bhaskar Reddy @ Chinna ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BEHARA RAJSHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2569/2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is filed on behalf of the petitioner herein to enlarge him on bail in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No. 382 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 308(5), 318(4), 131, 127(2), 351(2), 61(2) BNS, 67 ITA 2002- 2008 on the file of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that defacto complainant was running a coffee shop at Vishalakshinagar, Visakhapatnam in the name of WABI SABI ART CAFÉ. Six months prior to the report, one lady by name K. Joy Jamima has visited defacto complainant’s coffee shop along with her friend Udaya (Navya) and introduced herself as Digital Marketer and then told him she can help him develop his business and visited coffee shop regularly. Later one day, A1 insisted defacto complainant to come out for a drive, when he went for the drive, while he was driving the car, she sprayed something on his face and when he questioned the same, she replied that it is just a body mist. After some days, A1 invited complainant for dinner at her house and offered him juice and forcibly made him drink it. After dinner, defacto complainant felt unusually drowsy, later he woke up in A-1’s house. On the same evening, A-1 showed him some intimate photos. A-1 used to compel the defacto complainant to attend parties at A-2’s house. She also forced him to divorce his wife and marry her and threatened him that she will file a rape case against him in the same way she did to others and extorted money. She 3 also threatened defacto complainant with criminal force from her gang, compelled him to enter her drug business and threatened to share those photos to family and friends. On 24.05.2024, A-1 wrongfully detained the defacto complainant. Finally, on 29.07.2024, he ran away from A-1’s place. Hence the Crime. 3. Heard Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned Counsel through V.C., representing Sri B.Rajashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neelothpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is A-6, he is innocent, in fact, he is a victim in the hands of A-1. Learned counsel would further submit that except making a initial reference in the First Information Report, nothing in specific is attributed against him. Three other crimes were also registered against the petitioner wherein the petitioner was released on regular bail. Learned counsel would further submit that the entire allegations are made against A-1 that she administered intoxicants and taking photos in compromising position and threatening people, collecting money etc. Nothing is alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is an employee in Forest Department. A-1 and A-2 are released on regular bail. Learned counsel finally prays to consider the request for anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that four (4) crimes have been registered against the petitioner, it is the case of Human trafficking, 4 drugs, extortion. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would also submit that initially petitioner may be victim but later he strongly continued his relation with A-1 since 2019. The case diary shows 132 transactions were made between A-1 and the petitioner (A-6). They have retrieved a compact disc and 1039 calls were transcribed. It is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. The health condition of the victim in this case is very serious. The involvement of huge amounts in crypto currency is also present in this matter. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, it is a fact that FIR does not disclose specific overt acts against the petitioner except saying that they have formed into a gang. But the investigation reveals there were transactions between A-1 and A-6 (petitioner) and calls were made between them. Three more cases are also registered against the petitioner. The investigation is not completed. In the light of the severity of the allegations and the nature of the crime, it might have a social impact, it is not desirable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. In that view, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date:18.03.2025 UPS 5 80 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P. No.2569 of 2025 Dated.18.03.2025 UPS