/•■k IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY JHE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 321 OF 2025 Criminal Appeal under Section 14 (A) of SC, ST (POA) Act against the Order made in Crl.M.P.No.1160 of 2025 dated 01.05.2025 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC, ST (POA) Act — XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Between: - cum 1. Salapu Suresh, S/o. Ramana, Aged about 28 years, Pvt. Employee R/o. D.No. 12-29/1, Gunkalova, Marthur Village, AnakapalliMandal District.-(A1). and 2. BobbaraVaralakshmi, C/o. Bobbara Praveen Kumar, House-wife, Aged about 31 Vivekananda Nagar, Ramalayam, Ravindra Nagar, Visakhapatnam (Rural), Visakhapatnam District. - (A2). years. R/o. D.No. 5-288/1 ...Appellants/Accused No.1 & No.2 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Court, Amaravati. High ...Complainant/Respondent A >’■’ / 2. J. Priya Naga Manaswitha, D/o. Mukunda Rao, Aged about 27 C/Relli, R/o.D. No. 16-76-2 i Visakhapatnam District. (Respondent No.2 is impleaded as per the Court order dated 05.06.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.321 of 2025) ...Respondent No.2/Defacto-Complainant Counsel for the Appellants: SRI VENKATA SIVA NAGARAJ BONKURI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following JUDGMENT: years, 4, Pandurangapuram, Sector APHC010263552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 321/2025 [3396] Between: 1.SALAPU SURESH, S/0. RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, PVT. EMPLOYEE, R/0. D.NO. 12-29/1, GUNKALOVA, MARTHUR VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLIMANDAL AND DISTRICT.-(A1). 2.BOBBARAVARALAKSHMI,, C/0. BOBBARA PRAVEEN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. HOUSE-WIFE, R/0. D.NO. 5-288/1, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, RAMALAYAM, RAVINDRA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM (RURAL), VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. - (A2). ...APELLANT{S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, AMARAVATI. 2.J PRIYA NAGA MANASWITHA, D/0. MUKUNDA RAO, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, C/RELLI, R/0. D.NO. 16-76-2, SECTOR PANDURANGAPURAM, RESPONDENT N0.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 05.06.2025 IN I.A.N0.2 OF 2025 IN CRL.A.N0.321 OF 2025. ...RESPODENT{S): 4 VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. VENKATA SIVA NAGARAJ BONKURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to set aside the Order dated 01.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1160 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions 2 Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and to grant anticipatory bail to them. Heard Sri B.Venkata Siva Nagaraju Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants would submit that Respondent No.2 was in continuous and consensual relationship with Appellant/Accused No.1 for a period of eight years and there are no prima facie allegations against the Appellants to attract the alleged offences. Learned counsel \ 2. learned counsel for the would further submit that, the offence under SCSI (PoA) Act does not attract against the Appellants. It is further submitted that the allegations leveled against the Appellants are false and omnibus. Learned counsel would submit the Appellants undertake to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Hon’ble Court in the event of grant of anticipatory bail. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and would submit that the investigation is in progress. It is submitted that there are no tenable grounds to consider the present appeal for grant of anticipatory. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Now the point that would emerge for determination is: 4. 5. Whether the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is sustainable or not? POINT: It is alleged in the complaint that Appellant/Accused No.1 under the false promise of marriage with deceitful words, used to live with Respondent 6. 3 No.2 under one roof for a period of eight years and had sexual intercourse with her and subsequently refused to marry her. It is also alleged that Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 also threatened to kill her. The contention of the Appellants is that the allegations leveled in the complaint pertains to the year 2017 and subsequent thereto and there was a consensual relation between the Appellant/Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2. The learned trial Judge passed the impugned order dismissing the petition filed by the Appellants herein seeking anticipatory bail, on the ground that thorough investigation has to be conducted to finalize the allegations leveled against the Accused. Though there are allegations against the Appellants, this Court is of the view that they are the factual aspects to be decided during investigation and it is not the stage to decide the culpability of the Appellants by accepting the allegations. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the Appellants are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed setting aside the Order dated 01.05.2025 passed in CrI.M.P.No.1160 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 are granted anticipatory bail, on the following conditions: The Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court, within 15 days from today and shall furnish personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two 7. (i) 4 sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of concerned Magistrate Court; (ii) The Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall appear before the Station House Officer, concerned, once in a week i.e. a.m. and 05.00 p.m. The Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be available investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer; The Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Investigating or Police Officer. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. on Sunday between 10.00 (iii) for (iv) Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Act- Cases under SC & ST (POA) cum - XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra 3. One CC to Sri. Venkata Siva Nagaraj Bonkuri, Advocate 4. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra 5. Three CD Copies Pradesh [OUT] [OPUC] Pradesh. sree HIGH COURT DATED:27/06/2025 ORDER CRLA.No.321 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL