C`E* ___ --<\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY c# TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE us# r \ : PRESENT: tee+ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5166 OF 2025 Lj## Between : E= Kasimkota Kamewara Rao, S/o. K.Simhachalam, Aged 39 years, Occ. Govt. tssj~ l Employee, R/o. D.No.36-94-264/5/1, Amdebdar Street, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnanggr- ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by it Public Prosl~e=utor for High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at AmaravathI-.ttaf>Z ----. 2. Kasimkota Kunda ~ na, W/o. Kasimkota Kameswara Rao, Aged 32 years, R/o. 58-ll-124/4/1, Sakunthala Nilayam, NAD Junction, Gayathri Enclave, Visakhapatnam. u~ (Respondent No.2 is impleaded |a*S+ per the court order dated 22.05;.2025 in I.A.No.1;J2;I 2025 in CrI.P.No.516§_oi,2025) `-ir ..Respondent No.2 Petition under section 482 of BNSS, 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 direct the Airport Police Station,: visakhapatnam Dis#t, to enlarge the petitioner on ba" in the event of his arrest in Cr. No.48 of 2024 on the file of Airport Police Station. \/ , S The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petitI'On and the amr: :; :annt: UOT M;: Tg;ONu::SsA#D :nA SRuAP: ::dtvhoecraetoef foarntdh eu:oe:tI Ohneearr,I nagn dthoef! PUBLIC PROSb,E,C.UTOR, for the Respondent No.1, the Court made the: following •J APHCO10245102025 r EffiE lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SR] JUSTICE T. MALL]KARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5166/2025 [3369] Between: 1.KAS[MKOTA KAMEWARA RAO, S/O. K.SIMHACHALAM, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC. GOVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.36-94-264/5/1, AMDEBDAR STREET, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHl. 2.KASIMKOTA KUNDANA, W/O. KASIMKOTA KAMESWARA'' RAO, AGED 32 YEARS, R/o. 58-ll-124/4/1, SAKUNTHALA NILAYAM, NAB J U NOTION , GAYATH RI ENCLAVE, VISAKHAPATNAM. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORD'ER DATED 22.aO5.2025 IN LA.N-a.1 OF 2025 lN CRL.P.NO.5166 OF 2025 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): petition under section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated .ln the 'Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to `direct the Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam Dis{r€c{, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr. No.48 of 2024 on the file of Airport Police Station ]A NO: 1 OF'2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the 4 <-c`S . \ I 2 ' \..'\ - High Court may be pleased may be pleased to implead the proposed ae respondent as respondent No.2 in the above criminal petition i.e. cRLP` No. I 5166 of 2025 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and pass Counsel for the petitioner/accused: 1. TANDASA RADHA RANl I Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(s): 1.YELLATI NAGA SRINIVAS I 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: //ORDER\\ 1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya-Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for 'short, tBNSS'), has been` filed by the Petitioner/A.1, seeking anticipatory bail, I'n COnneCtiOn With `'Crime No.48 of 2024 of Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner/Al and other accused for the offences punishable under Section 42, 493, 494, 497, 4`98-A, 307, 354(A), 313, 320, 322 r/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, [IPCJ) and Section 156(3) ofCr.P.C. , 3. The prosecu{ion]s case, in brief, js that the defacto complainant, a private school teacher from Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, met the I petitioner/accused, an Indian Navy employee, through her father in December, 2013. They developed a close relationship, during which she borrowed money from him. ln November, 2015, the petitioner was transferred to Visakhapatnam and promised to marry her. The complainant secured a I-Ob in Uttar Pradesh but later traveled to Visakhapatnam on 21.02.2016, where they married at Annavaram Temple. Following the marriage, the petitioner began demanding dowry and harassed her. In November, 2016, she learned that the petitioner had previously married Kasimkota MaIIeswari/A.5 and' had '{wo children with her. The petitioner also claimed to have secured a Government f I Jl .- . ..>,>,..=: _ S_ __. =tce RT© / job by paying Rs. 5,00,000, which she paid believing him. ln March, 2020, when the complainant became pregnant, the petitioner, his wife, and -associates forced her to abort. After she refused, they harassed her, leading to a miscarriage. In August, 2021! after conceiving again, the petitioner and others allegedly tried to kill her, resulting in another abortion. In 2022, after catching the petitioner and Pushpa red-handed, she filed a complaint on 25.01.2023, which the Police initially refused to register. She subsequently filed a private complaint under sections 190(1) and 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., and the case was referred to the Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defacto complainant, in her private complaint, described herself as the petitioner's wife. He argues that the complaint contains,only general allegations without any specific overt act attributed to the petitioner. He further contends that the alleged incidents took place in the year 2013, and a!{hough the complainant claims to have learned of the petitioner's prior marriage in 2016, she filed the complaint only on 25.01.2023 nearly a decade after the allegeci events. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent-State opposed the grant of ant-LCiPatOry bail tO the Petitioner/A1. 6. As per the orders dated 22.05.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025, the defacto complainant was`impleaded as Respondent No.2. t 7. I have heard Smt. T. Radha Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1; learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State and Sri Y. N. Srinivas, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Defacto complainant. 8. The material on record shows that the defacto complainant, a teacher by profession from Srikakulam, was working a{ a private school in Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu. She became acquainted with the petitioner/A.1 in December, 2013 while residing with her parents at the Navy Quarters in Tirunelveli. According {o her complaint, she discovered in November, 2016 .that the petitioner ;had previously marriec] Kasimkota Malleswari/A.5, with whom he •. •tiI.I h4l( ..` 'tl I. had two_children, and I_hey were.residing with his pareh{s` at KaParada, -igrl Kancharapalem, visakhapatn;m." i 9. I A reading of the complaint reveals that, despite learning abo'u't `the petitioner's I('A.1 ) prior marriage to A.5, the defacto complainant contihu;d her relationship with him without objection. The complaint further states' that-in March 2020, she became pregnant and inform|ed A.1 of.th`e saine-. The complaint 'reveals that the defacto comp!ainant made certain allegations against the petI'tiOner/A.1, with the incidents reportedly occ`urring ih`2026. - e However, she filed a report only on 25.01.2023, indicating a 'deiay 6f over 21/2 years. Based on this private complaint, a crilme was registered on 24:02.2024 nearly foul-years after the alleged events. Notably, the complaihaht, a' privat'e I school teacher, admitted to continuing her relationship with the peti{ioher even after learning of.his prior marriage in_2016 and later became pregnant, forming I the basis of the present accusations. 10. The F.LR., in a criminal case, is a vital and valuable piece of eviide-n'ce, though it may not be substantive. The object of insist[-ng upon+prompt !odgjh`g' of the I.I.R., with respect to the commission of an offence, is to-obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime vI7as committed. lil ther`e i.s a delay in lodging the F.LR., it loses the advantage of spontaneity; danger creeps in of the int,roduction of a coloured versioh;.exaggerated account or cc,ncocted story because of many consui{a{ions/ deliberations-.I The promptness in lodging trie F.I.R. is an assurance regarding the truth of the inforlmant's version. A promptly lodged F.I.R. reflects the firsthand account of what happened and who was responsible for the offence.I (l'n this '¢regard, re+erence can^be made to Thulia Kali V. State of Tamil Nadu.1) ll: Though the delay may not be fatal to the criminal proceedings aslit \ ' always depends upon the facts and circumstances o'f each 'case,`' this-court views that` 'the petitioner make at least a case out for grant of anti'cipatory bail U/sac.438 of Cr.P.C. 1 (1972) 3 SCC 393 -TJ---I_i-I- REnd- 12I The existence of the power to arrest is one thing; the justification for exercising it is quite another. Apart from the power to arrest, the police officers must be able to J'uStify the reasons thereof. No arrest can be made routinely on a inere allegation of the commission of an offence made against a person. lt would be prudent and wise for a police officer to make no arrest without I reasonable satisfaction 'being reached after some investigation into the genuineness of the allegation. (ln this regard, a reference can be made to Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar.2) 13. It is also a well-accepted principlethat bail is the rule and thejail I'S the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Cfr,-cfambaram V. a,-recforafe of Enforcemenf3 considering all the earlier judgments, it was observed that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same in {ha{ the grant of bail is the rule, and refusal is the exception to ensure that the accused has the opportunity to secure a fair trial. 44. ln Siddharam Sail-IngaPPa Mhetre V. State of Nlaharashtra4, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down certain factors and parameters that- must be considered while dealingawith anticipatory bail. lt further held as follows: "113a Arrest should be the last option, and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative based on the facts and circumstances of that case. The Court must carefully examine the entire available recorcI, particularly the allegations directly attributed to the accused, which are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record." 15. Considering the significant delay in approaching the police and filing the private complaint, this Court finds it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. During the investigati6n, it was reported that, despite efforts, the petitioner could not be apprehended. However, there is no claim that he is evading or not cooperating` with the investigation. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Kancharapalem Village, Visakhapatnam District, and there appears to be no risk of him fleeing the Court's jurisdiction. Therefore, 2 (2014) 8 SCC 273 3 (2019) 9 SCC'66 4 (2011) 1 SCC 694 I-_ -- I-I- €--I:, rl6 vl i .;Ill i' • `._:,I.,.h this court deems it necessary fo impose c;rtain stringent conditions while granting anticipatorybat-I. `' I I 16. Upon c~areful review of the available material, as th6Fe' is no riJsk'of in{erfere`nce w-ith the ongoing investigation by the petitioner, this court finds that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner herein under certain stringent condi{jons: (i) The petitioner/A.1+ is directed to surrender before the station House Officer concerned wI-thin two (2) weeks from today. (eii)I on such surrender, `the petit`ioner shall be released onl `bai'l on-this ® ~ `cex6cuting `a bersonal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand 'o'nly) with two sureties' for a like sum each to 'the satisfaction of the arresting police officials. (iii)'The petitioner shaI'I appear before the concerned statio-n House Officer on every Sunday in between 10 A.M. to 1 P.Ml for a peri6d of four (4) months. (iv) The petitioner shall cooperate for investigation and he she" appear before,the investigation officer as and when his presence is I-equired. (v) The petitioner shall not cause any threat, inducement orf'promise {o the prosecution witnesses. (vi') ln the event of failure to appear before the concerned station House Officer, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to take appropriate steps' t for cancellation of the order passed by this court by bringing the n6tic;e of this court. 17.- With the above directions, the criminal petition is a//owec/. MiscellaneoIJS applications Pendirlg, if any; in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed. fzT SD/-M.PRAB ASSISTAN //TRUE COPY// sE TInN . -.- HAKARA RAo GiSTRAR n||lr|r| To, 1. The Sessions Judge, Manila court, visakhapatnam, visakhapatnam District 2 The StatI'On House officer, Air Port Police station, visakhapatnam District 3. Kasimkota Kundana, w/o. Kasimkota Kameswara Rao, Aged 32 years, R/o. 58-ll-124/4/1, Sakunthala Niiayam, NAD Junction, Gayathri Enclave, visakhapatnam. (by RPAD) 4. One CC to M/s TANDASA RADHA RANl, Advocate [opuc] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra pradesh [OUT] 6. One spare copy PSR HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED: 10/07/2025 1\ ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.5166 of 2025 J<'- i: i ALLOWED