* IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARA)^ 'X THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE rPRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3453 OF 2025 Between: Vaddadhi Sai Kumar, S/o. Chinna, aged about 30 years, R/o. House NO.S6, Block No.27, Sevanagar, Kommadi, Visakhapatnam District ... Petitioner/Acc used AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS (Under 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 pleased to release the petitioner/Accused on bail in Cr. No. 115 of 2025 of PM Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam on the allegation that the Petitioner committed an alleged offence punishable Under Section 69 of BNSS Act 2023, Dated 19-02-2025. ' The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s DURGA SREE DEVI, Advocate for the Petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent; 7 ' 0 1 APHC010163202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3453/2025 Between: Vaddadhi Sai Kumar ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.DURGA SREE DEVI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The court made the following: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.115 of 2025 of Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commisionerate. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 1. A case has been registered against the petitioner/aecused for the offences punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’). The prosecution's briefcase is that the defacto complainant resides at Block No.14, G-8, Sevanagar, Kommadi, Visakhapatnam, with her son and 2. 3. V r 2 daughter. She previously worked as a beautician and is now employed in housekeeping at GVMC. In 2003, she married Mr.Hari, but due to ongoing disputes, they separated in 2009. In 2013, she became acquainted with the accused living in the same colony. The accused expressed his love for her and assured her that he would marry her and cohabitate with her sexually on the pretext of marriage. Subsequently, the accused denied having married her and challenged her to take whatever action she deemed When she enquired about the necessary, repayment of hand loans borrowed from Lakshmi of Rajendra Nagar and Reddi Babu, he bluntly refused he was not responsible for repaying the debts, physically assaulted her before leaving, taking with him a gold chain weighing five tulas, which had been a gift from her mother. stating that Furthermore, he abused and 4. I have heard Ms. Durga Sree Devi, learned counsel for the and Sri G. Neelothpal, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the / State. Learned counsel on either side reiterated their submissions, which on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report. petitioner, respondent are 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has filed allegations and suppressing material facts. de facto a complaint against the petitioner, making false A mere perusal of the record reveals that no offence is made out against the petitioner as alleged in the complaint, and the ingredients of the alleged offence are not substantiated. Furthermore, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 20.02.2025, and the police have completed their investigation, abode and undertakes to cooperate fully with the police until the conclusion the trial. The petitioner has a fixed of 6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner, asserting that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner; the investigation is incomplete, and if the petitioner is released, he may tamper with evidence and fail to cooperate with the investigation. representing the State, 3 In MasroorV. State of aP.\a Division Bench of the Honble Supreme Court observed as follows; 7. 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, 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 with having committed a serious offence. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even according to the prosecution's case, the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was a long-standing consensual physical relationship without element of deception from its inception; as such, the same cannot be a ground for lodging the FIR for the offences mentioned above. defacto any 9, This court views that not every instance of engaging in sexual relations with a woman under the promise of marriage constitutes rape. It cannot be universally stated that sexual intercourse under such amount to rape. Each case must be examined individually, considering specific facts and the surrounding circumstances of the situation. According to the allegations outlined in the report, the defacto complainant became acquainted with the accused in 2013; the accused expressed his love for her and assured her that he would cohabitated with her sexually on the pretext of marriage; he later refused to marry her. a promise will always the 10. marry her and 11. The material on record indicates that over the past twelve years, the petitioner and the de facto complainant have gradually become acquainted with each other, developing a relationship over time, and this relationship has evolved to include a physical aspect, indicating a level of intimacy and personal connection between the two individuals. (2009) 14 see 286 \ I 4 In Mahesh Damu Khare V. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: 31. In our view, if criminality is to be attached to such prolonged physical relationships at a very belated stage, it can lead to serious consequences. It will open the scope for imputing criminality to long-term relationships after turning sour, as such an ailegation can be made even at a belated stage to drag a person into the juggernaut of a stringent criminal process. There is always a danger of attributing criminal intent to an otherwise disturbed civil relationship, which the court must also be mindful of 32. 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 periods, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence. 12. 13. In Maheshwar Tigga V. The State of Jharkhand^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that; 20. We have no hesitation in concluding that the consent of the prosecutrix vi/as 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 In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.^, 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 fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There Is also a distinction between a 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 the Accused, or where an Accused, on account of circumstances which he 14. ^ MANU/SC/1252/2024 ® MANU/SC/0725/2020 MANU/SC/1518/2018 5 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. It is apparent from the record that the complainant/victim, at the time of filing the report, was 35 years old, and since 2013, the accused became acquainted with the complainant and had sexual intercourse with her. The victim formerly worked as a beautician and is presently working in the VMC; 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. According to the prosecution's case, the complainant/victim is a married woman; she married one Hari in 2003, and they have two children together. It is alleged that the accused, fully aware of her marital status and her children, proposed to marry her. It appears that there were 'financial transactions between the parties. When the petitioner refused to repay the amounts borrowed as hand loans from Lakshmi of Rajendra Nagar and Reddi Babu, their relationship strained. 15. In Pratap Singh V. State of Himachal Pradesh^, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that: 16. 6. Apart from that, did the petitioner ever promise to marry the prosecutrix in the first place is also a question that can only be determined during the course of the 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 is the exception. 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. The seriousness of the allegation or availability of the material in support thereof is not the only consideration for declining bail. Another factor which has to be borne in mind is the delay in the commencement and conclusion of trial; after all. ® MAN U/H p/0646/2016 6 the accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period, that too at the pre-conviction stage, if'the trial is not likely to be concluded within a reasonable time. 11. It is more than settled that the object of ball is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question of 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 also has 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 defend himself than if he was in custody properly. Thus, grant or non-grant of bail depends upon a variety of circumstances, and the cumulative effect thereof enters into a 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. In State of Kerala vs. Raneef^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: 17. In deciding ball 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 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 most important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. 13. In the present case, the Respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in paragraph 2 of his 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. 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. It is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper with the prosecution evidence or intimidate the 18. ® MANU/SC/0001/2011 witnesses cannot be grounds to refuse bail unless the the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. prosecution shows that 19. 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 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 20.02.2025, 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 trial 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 hampering the investigation. However, in light of the nature of the allegations, this court will impose stringent conditions to ensure the petitioner's attendance during the investigation and trial. or 21. Given the discussion made hereinabove, without commenting anything on the merits, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present Criminal Petition is ailowed 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 VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 8 the petitioner/accused shall appear before the Officer concerned once a week i.e. 10.00 AM and 01.00 PM for three (03) till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier. (b) On release, Investigating Sunday between months or every (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 shall not tamper with evidence, and shall I witnesses, cooperate with the investigation. shall scrupulously comply with the above and breach of any of them will be viewed seriously, at liberty to move an application for (d) The petitioner conditions. The prosecution is cancellation of the bail. 1 Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. OFFlCEf^ //TRUE COP rv». .. To, 1. The VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District: 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District 3. The Station House Officer, P.M.Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District 4. OneCCto M/s DURGA SREE DEVI, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. One spare copy PSR HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED: 10/04/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.3453 of 2025 ALLOWED < is' I im ms H J-k 'XP ..»?