\` <\ `\~ * \.` I + IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAYI THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I .'PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJuNA RAO Between : CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2824 OF 2025 / BangarI' Ram Prasad, S/o Eswara Rao, Aged about 32 Y, R/a D.No.17T 17-5, Kodipandhala veedhi, vlsakhapatnam -530001, Andhra Pradesh: Petl'tioneIIAccused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court of Andhra pradesh, Amaravati Respondent 2. Kona Jayanthi D/o. Kona Srinivasa Rao, aged about 31 Year, Door #oa'hla7r-aln1-p3elt;, vi¥aekehdaapatn::I:I:300Voeledhl', Kodipandala Veedhi, Respondent-2 (Defacto complainant) Respondent No.2 I'S imPle,a;did as per the court order dated 24/3/2025 in I.A.No.1 of2025 in CRL.P.No.2824 of2O25 'i petitI'On under Sections 48.0 & 483 of BNSS (Old SectI-OnS 437 & 439 |\ \ _ -_ ---``_|\++ |\+I \^ T\J\ cr.p.c), prayl-ng that in the ci`ieumstances stated in the affldavI't filed -| \-_ __ _ __JI_ \ \| ___.,__ ... I,.`, I+-Il`+CIVIL fII5`J support of the criminal petitl-on,I the High Court may be pleased to enlarge raIJ=at>Z1 +I.A r]^-:1:____,A _ %,I_.jE-y¢m- -.a ---, ~-I---`-`l,`1 ``, ,lllalg release the petitioner/Accused herein on bail in connection with cr.No.23 2025, on the file of I Town Police`SfatI-On, VIsakhapatnam. - - `\t\.- The petition coming on for hearl'rg, upon perusing the petition and the5 grounds filed in support ther+eof and upon hearI'ng the arguments of sri MOJJADA HARI KRISHNA, Advocate for the petitioner and of PUBLIQ PROSECUTOR for the Respondent No.1, and of SRI KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, the court made the'{ following,I APHCO10131552025 lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO _C_R[MINAL PETITION NO: 2824/2Q2§ Betwee n : Bangari Ram Prasad I AND The State OfAndhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MOJJADA HARI KRISHNA [3369] ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This `Crimina[ Petition, under Section 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, lBNSS'), is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused, seeking regular bail in connection with crime No.23 of 2025 of I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Section 318(4), 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS'). 3. The prosecutionls case, in brief, is that this is a case of Rape coupled with cheating that occurred before 29.01.202& at approximately 16:30 hours, i '- 2 at upper Re" veedhi, visakhapatnam clty and the l'ncident was reported on tl JP 29.01.2025. The defacto complal|nant/victl-m stated that she became acquainted with the accused in 2010, and they loved each other. However, I-n 2019, their love was not accepted by their families, and the accused married another woman. ln 2023, the accused, obtal'ned the victim's phone number and began contactI'ng her frequently. He claimed that he was no longer l'nterested in h,'s wl'fe and intended to dl'vorce her. He deceived the victI-m into believing h,'s words. In September 2024. the accused vI'Sited the victl'mls house and had sexual l'ntercourse without her consent. Additionally, he took the victim to the EI,'te Lodge in AIIipuram multiple times, and had sexual I'ntercourse with her. on various occasl-ons, he also took Rs.3,00,000/-from her. Now, the accused has refused to marry the victim, promptl-ng her to file the report agal'nst the accused. 4. The learned counsel for the petJ'tI-Oner subml-ts that the FIR allegatl'ons are baseless and fabricated, aimed at falsely l'mpll-catI'ng the petitioner,- even aacncdo:hd:g._nt= nt=1:n ~P:::=_c:ti_a_n' s case , the relat'.a ;shi; £e;:ern~:;:I :e=;it=oVneenr and the complaI'nant was consensual and longstandl'ng, wl'th no deceptl'on or false promise of marriage, and the complainant was aware of the petl'tioner's marital status. The petitioner has been in custody s,-nee 30-01-2025, w,-th most of the investigation complete, except for the charge sheet. There is no risk of evidence tamperl'ng, the petI'tiOner has a fixed abode, no criminal record, and I-S the sole breadwinner for his dependent family. Learned counsel, therefore, Prays for the grant of bail. 5. The learned Assistant public prosecutor, representing the state, opposes the grant of ba" to the petitioner, assertI'ng that serious allegatI'OnS are 'evI-ed aga,'nst the petitioner,- the investigatI-On I-s I'nCOmPlete, and if released, the petitl-oner may tamper with evidence and fa" to cooperate wl'th the I-nvestigation. Therefore, the prosecution prays for the dl-smjssal of the petitI'On. -``.-. E== EE enir`ltS 6. Learned counsel forthe 2nd respondent/ complaI'nant opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 7. By the order dated 24.03.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025, this Court has impleaded the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant in the present crI'ml-nal petition. 8. I have heard SrI' MdJ-jada Hari Krishna, learned counsel forthe petitioner, Sri G. NeelothpaI, learned Assistant PLIbII'C Prosecutor for the let respondent / State and Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel- for the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant. Learned counsel on either side reiterated their submissions, which are on par with th'e contentl'ons presented in the Petition and the report. 9. In MasroorV. Sfafe ofU.P.7, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: 13. ... Though at the stage of grant-Ing bail, an elaborate exam~lnation of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may - prejudice the accused, should be avoided, but there is a need to indicate in such order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of hav-Ing committed a Serious offe nce . 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the even according to the prosecution's case, the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was a long standing consensual physical relationship without any element of deception from its inception, as such, the same cannot be a ground for lodging the FIR for the offences mentioned above. ll. This Court views that not every instance of engaging in sexual relations with a woman under the promise of marriage constitutes rape. lt cannot be universally stated that sexual intercourse under such a promise will always amount to rape. Each case must be examined individually., considering the specific facts and the surrounding circumstances of the situation. 1 (2009) 14 SCC 286 - 4 €.+S$ 12. The material on record ind-lcates that defactO COmPla'lnant/Victim and 1 I+ accused knew each other since 2010 and their love continued till 2019; in 2019, the accused married another woman after their love Was rejected by their families; in 2023,I the accused reconnected with the Victim, Claiming he would divorce his wife; in september 2024, he had sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent at her home and also took her to the Elite Lodge. multiple times, and had sexual intercourse with her; he later refused tO marry her. 13. As seen from the record, the accused iS a married individual, a fact known to the de facto complainant as stated in the complaint. over the past fifteen years, the petitioner and the de facto complainant have become acquainted, and for the past four months, they have maintained a physical relationship. The defacto compla'lnanVvictim is supposed to know that their marriage will not be performed, unless the petitioner obtained divorce from his wife and it is not her case that the petitioner obtained divorce from her wife, but he refused to marry her. 14. ln Nlahesh Damu Khare V. The State of Nlaharashtra and Ore.2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: 31. In our view if criminality ®IS to be attached to Such Prolonged physical relationship at a very belat€d stage, it can lead to :erious consequences. It will open the scope for imputing `Criminality to such tend term relationships ` after turning sour, as such an allegation can be made,even at a belated stage to drag a person in. the juggemaut of stringent criminal process. There is always a danger of attributing Criminal intent to an othervise disturbed c®IVil relationship of which the Court must also be mindful. l32.-It is evident from the large number of cases decided by this Court dealing with similar matters as discussed above that there iS a worrying trend that consensual relationships going on for Prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence. - - -I,4 2 MANU/SC/1252/2024 15. ln Mane.shwar TiggaL V. The State of Jharkhand3, the Honlble ~/ Supreme Court held that: 20. We have nQ hesitation in COnClud-Ing that the consent Of the PrOSeCutriX was but a conscious and deliberated choice, as distinct from an involuntary action or denial and which opportunity was available to her, becaus€ of her deep-seated love .for the Appellant leading her to willingly permit him liberties with her body, which according to normal huma; be-haviour are permitted only to a person with whom one is deeply in love 16. ln Dhruvaram NIurlidhar Sonar vs. The State of NIaharashtra and Ore.4, the Honlble Supreme Court held that: 20. Thus, there is a clear dist-InCtiOn between rape and COnSenSual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is also a distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the Accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the Accused and not solely on account of the misconception created by Accused; or where an Acoused, on account of ciroumstances wh-ICh he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. such cases must be treated differently. If the compla-Inant had any mala tide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear. case of rape. The acknowledged consensual physical .relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under section 376 df the Indian Pe;aI Code. 17. lt is apparent from the record that the comp[ainanvvictim, at the time of filing the report, was.30 years old and was 29 years old when the first incident of sexual intercourse occurred. The victim is not an illiterate woman, and therefore, at first glance, it cannot be said that consent was obtained through fraud. As such, she is presumed to be fully aware of the consequences of engaging in sexual intercourse with a man before marriage. 3 MAN U/SC/0725/2020 4 MANU/SC/1518/2018 Ei- E= \-`_ 6 18. ln Pratap Singh V. State of HimachaI Pradesh5, the Hlgh Court of # HimachaI Pradesh held that: -' 6..4.part_ from that, did the petitioner ever promise to marry the prosecutrix at the firs! pI_ape is also a question that can only be determined during the course of trial, but these are not circumstances which can be said io be sufficient enough to purtail the liberty of the petitioner. Bail is the rule and jail the exception. 10. What would emerge from the conspectus of the aforesaid case law is thpf at the pro-conviction stage, there is a presumption of innocence. The ?Pie?t. ?f keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The d=tention is not 3u_P_P_osed to be Punitive Or Preventive. Seriousness of allegation or availability of material in support thereof are not the only considerations for declining bail. Another factor which has to be borne in mind is the delay in commencement and conclusion of trial, after all the accused cannot be F?pt_ir _c_ustody for indefinite period, that too at the pre-conviction stage, if the trial is not likely to be concluded with-In a reaSOnatrle time. ll. It is more than settled that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be.withheld as a punishment. The Court has also to consider whether there is .?ny possibility of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witn_esses etc. Once these tests are satisfied, bail should be granted to din under trilal vyhich is also important as viewed from another angle, namely, an accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to lo6k a_Per his cape and to properly defend himself than if he was in custody. Thus, grant or nor-grant of bail depends upon a variety of circumstanc6s and the cumulati+e effiect thereof enters into -judicial -verdict. The Court Stresses that any Single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail. 19. In Sfafe ofKera/a vs. Raneef6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: In .deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his I-Ire SPent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental r®lghts in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? of 5 MANU"P/0646/2016 6 MANU/SC/0001/2011 d4ZZZ? i--- `=--.` •S,a.edj) course this is not the only factor, but it is `certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. 13. In the present case the Responden`t has already spent 66 days in custody (as sta.ted in` paragraph 2 of his counter affidavit), ?nd we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr. Manette in Charles Dicken's novel 'A Tale of Two Cities', who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille. 20. At this stage, the allegations against the petitioner are subject to the , trial's outcome. The trial is anticipated to take a considerab1.e amount of time. Bail serves the purpose of allowing an accused to remain'free until his guilt or innocence is determined. 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. 21. The petitioner's continued preventive custody cannot be based on an unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamPer With the evidence Or influence witnesses. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima fac.le analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre- trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and Conditions mentioned in this order. 22. The material on record indicates that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 30.01.2025, and the statements of the victim and most of the material witnesses have already been recorded. Furthermore, the petitione; has a fixed place of residence, making it highly improbable that he would abscond if granted bail. No prior criminal record has been reported against the petitioner. The triaI's commencement is uncertain as the investigation is incomplete, and there is no material that granting bail would hinder justice. Therefore, this Court finds no risk of the petitioner tampering with witnesses or hampering'the investigation. However, in light of the nature of allegations, this •-._,/ court will impose stringent .conditions to ensure the petitionerls attendance during the investigation and trial. 23. Given the discussion made hereinabove, without commenting anything on the merits, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present Criminal Petition is a//owed w'lth the following conditions: (a) The petitioner/accused shall be released on bail On executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two sureties for the like Sum each tO the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. (b) on release, the petitioner/accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in a week i.e., every Sunday between' 10.00 AM and 01.00 PM for three (03) months or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier. (c) The petitioner/accused shall not directly or indirectly contact Or threaten the witnesses under any circumstances, and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt tO influence the witnesses, shall not tamper with evidence, and shall cooperate with the investigation. (d) The petitioner shall scrupulously comply With the above condit'IOnS, and breach Of any Of them W'lll be viewed seriously. The Prosecution is a't liberty to move an application for cancellat'lon of the bail. Miscellaneous applications Pending, if any, Shall stand closed. Sol- K.sF?;A,::-:: ---|\II As s IS +k'^``II¥ SEcTI For ASS[sln._ , //TRUE COPY// 'Y\ FGISTFe;i i ieAJ_a 7. One spare copy KJ •T -` HIGH COURT •'-- ,TMR,J DATED : 04/04/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.2824 of 2025 ALLOWED a+try., _ I •\.?-,ts prri L]p! fasa,i---- ;a. -. I-'JJZZ=JZ? _ , -..rty,¥ ..-i,..-. `