lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl // FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL, ^`,f,{z{ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3164 OF 2025 Betwee n : Karri Lokesh, S/o Veerababu, Aged 25 years, R/o D.No 14-19-12/3 Nidanam Doddi, Near New Court, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli. ...Petitioner/Accused AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Judicial Complex, Amaravati. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 480:&-~483 of BNSS (Old Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C), praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the, Criminal Petition, the High Court may be lpleased to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.15/2025 dt.01.02.2025 on the file of Dwaraka Police station ,Visakhapatnam City. Counsel forthe Petitioner : Sri M. Sapthagiri Counsel for the Respondent : Assistant Public Prosecutor. The Court made the following ORDER: ERE!RE -I, ff£ =I , APHCO10147762O25 E]HE] lN THE HIG,H 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 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3164/2025 AND Between : Karri Lokesh The State Of Andhar Pradesh [3369] ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. M. SAPTHAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 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.15 of 2025 of Dwaraka Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 2. A case has been registered against the petit'loner/accused for the offences punishable under Section 64(1) and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, lBNSI). 3l The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the complainant became acquainted with the accused, a dancer, through her friend Vineeth. ln 2020, the accused proposed, but she rejected him. Despite this, he continued to Pursue her, Claiming love and insisting On marriage. On 13.08.2021, without J|/ her consent, the accused took her to Hotel SVI Residency, Visakhapatnam, and forcibly raped her under the pretext of marriage. The accused continued to have forceful sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions between 2021 and 2024, specifically on 22.01.2022,14.08.2021, and 17.04.2024. ln 2023, he took her to Hyderabad and kept her at the JNTUK OYO Hotel for four days and forced her sexually and committed rape. The complainant has proof of their relationship, including photographs taken by the accused. Additionally, the accused financially exploited her, using approximately Rs. 7 lakhs for his personal needs. After winning the Dhee 15 title, his behavior changed, and he began avoiding her. On 18.12.2023, his family provided a written commitment to marry her within a year. However, after the deadline passed, the accused ignored her, changed his number, and continued to avoid her. Therefore, the complainant has lodged this report, requesting necessary legal action against him for raping her under the pretext of love and marriage and cheated her by deceitfully caused her financial loss. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitionerfiled a bail application (Crl.M.P.No.610/2025) before the Vll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, which was dismissed on 17.03.2025. The petitioner has been in Central Jail, Visakhapatnam, since 02.02.2025. He further contends that the criminal proceedings in this case constitute an abuse of the process of law, thus making the petitioner eligible for bail. The petitioner is willing to furnish solvent sureties upon release, and accordingly, prays for the grant of regular baI'l. 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the State, opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner, asselling that serious a[[egations are levied against the petitioner; the investigation is incomplete, and if released, the petitioner may tamper with evidence and fail to cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, the prosecution prays for the dismissal of the petition. `* ``````` i: 6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their I. submissions, which are on par with the contentions presented in the Petition and the report. 7. In MasroorV. Sfafe ofU.P.7, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: 13. ... Though at the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination 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 having committed a serious offence. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even according to the prosecutjon's case, the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was a long standing consensual physical relationship without any element of deceptI'On from its inception, aS Such, the Same Cannot be a ground for lodging the FIR for the offences ment'loned above. 9. 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. 10. According to the allegations outlined in the report, the de facto complainanVvictim became acquainted with the accused in 2019. ln 2020, the petitioner proposed to her, but she rejected. Nevertheless, he persisted 'ln following her under the guise of love. On 13.08.2021, the accused forcibly raped her and thereafter, he continued to have forceful sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions. ll. The material on record indicates that, over the course of the past six years, the petitioner and the de facto complainant have gradually become 1 (2009) 14 SCC 286 acquainted with each other,_developing a relationship over time. over the past rr three years, thI'S relatI'OnShiP has evolved tO include a physical aspect, indicating a level of intimacy and personal connection between the two indivl'duals. 12. ln Mahesh Damu Khare V. The State of NIaharashtra ancI Ors.2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: 31.. I.? ou_r.view if criminality -IS tO be attached tO Such Prolonged physical reI.ftionship at a very belated stage, it can lead to serious consequen-ces. It wi!.I op.en t.he scope for imputing ciiminality to such long term relationships after turning sour, as such an allegation can be made even at a belated s±ge to drag a person in the juggernaut of stringent criminal process. There is always a danger of attributing criminal intent to an otherwise disturbed civil relationship of which the court must also be mindful. 32. It is evident from the large number of cases decided by this court qealing 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. 13. ln Nlaheshwar Tigga V. The State of Jharkhand3, the Honlble Suprem'e Court held that: 20. We have no hesitation in concluding 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, because of her deep-seated love for the Appellant leading her to willingly permit him liberties with her body, which according to normal human behaviour are Permitted Only to a person with whom one is deeply in love 14. ln Dhruvaram Nlurlidhar Sonar vs. The State of IVlaharashtra and Ors.4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: 20. Thus, there is a clear distinction 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 tide 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 MAN U/SC/1252/2024 MAN U/SC/0725/2020 MANU/SC/1518/2018 r, ~,t ~i &`ky* *--ha`i€```*b 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 m-ISCOnCePtiOn Created by Accused, or where an Accused, on account of circumstances Which 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 complainant had any mala fide 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 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. lt is apparent from the record that the COmPlainant/Victim, at the time Of filing the report, was 26 years old and was 23 years old when the first incident of sexual intercourse occurred. The vict'lm studied M.Pharmacy and presently working in pulsus company in lT SEZ, 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, 16. ln Pratap Singh V. State of HimachaI Pradesh5, the H'lgh Court of HimachaI Pradesh held that: 6. Apart from that, did the Petitioner ever Promise tO marry~the PrOSeCutriX at the first place is also a question that can Only be determ®Ined during the course of trial, but these are not circumstances which can be said to be sufficient enough to curtail the liberty of the petitioner. Bail is the rule and jail the except-ion. 10. What would emerge from the conspectus Of the aforesaid Case law iS that at the pre-conviction stage, there is a presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be Passed. The detention is not supposed 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 conclus-IOn Of trial, after all the accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period, that too at the pre-conviction stage, if the trial is not likely to be concluded Within a reasonable time. 5 MANU/HP/0646/2016 <rJBa 5¥ed €s®;®+±** 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 any possibility of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses etc. Once these tests are satisfied, bail should be granted to an under trial which is also important as viewed from another angle, namely, an accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he was in custody. Thus, grant or non-grant of bail depends upon a var®Iety Of Circumstances and the cumulative effect 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. 17. ln Sfafe ofKera/a vs. Raneef6, the HonJble Supreme Court held that: ln 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 resto;e so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. 13. ln the present case the Respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in paragraph 2 of h®IS COunter affidavit), and 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. 18. At this stage, the allegations against the petitioner are subject to the trial's outcome, The trial is anticipated to take a considerable 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. 6 MANU/SC/0001/2011 JT .t` .`+-.'`-I - 19. The petitioner's continued preventive custody cannot be based on an unsubstantiated suspicion tha{~ he might tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie 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. 20. The material on record indicates that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 02.02.2025, and the statements of the victim and most of the material witnesses have already been recorded. Furthermore, the petitioner 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 petitioner's attendance during the investigation and trial. 21. Given the discussion made hereinabove, without commenting anything on the merits, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present Criminal Petition is a//owed with 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 I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. (b) On release, the petitioner/accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned once in a week i.e., every E5=EEFRE Sunday between 1,0.00 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 petl'tioner shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions, and breach of any of them will be viewed seriously. The Prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail. Miscellaneous applications pending, l'f any, shall stand closed. SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAJu AS S_I_S_T_A NRE //TRUE COPY// EGISTRAR I SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, visakhapatnam. 2. The Superl'ntendent, central prI-son, Visakhapatnam, vI-SakhaPatnam DistrI'Ct. 3. The Station House Officer, Dwaraka police statI'On, VIsakhapatnam. 4. One CC to Sri M. Sapthagiri, Advocate [opuc] 5. Two CCs to Publl'c prosecutor (AP) High Court ofAndhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. One spare copy CVSS -7,` HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED : 04/04/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.3164 of 2025 ALLOWED o4 APR%#\