APHC010277382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI QMS r jr-Hx: ■I? TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINALPETITIONNO: 5722 OF 2025 BETWEEN: Tigiripalli Raj Paul, S/o. Gabriel, aged about 33 years, R/o. 8-304, B.C. Colony, Gopalapuram, West Godavari - 534316, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Through S.H.O of Tanuku Rural Police Station. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on Anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the staff of the Tanuku Rural Police Station, in FIR vide Cr. No. 100 of 2025. Counsel for the Petitioner:- SRI PARIMI RAMA RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondent:- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: % 4- APHC010277382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) QMS ^ JCaHJT [3521] TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5722/2025 Between: Tigiripalli Raj Paul ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: I.PARIMI RAMA RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/Accused for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 100 of 2025 of Tanuku Rural Police Station, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections69, 318(2), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘the BNS’). e prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the complainant has The petitioner/accused used to talk to her while leave. The petitioner/accused deceived her into unmarried and that he intended a. years. she was returning home on believing that he was Upon discovering confronted to marry and live with her. in fact married and had that the accused him about his deceit, harassed her. When she told would convince her at home die if she left him. On 26. was a female child, she Thereafter, the accused physically assaulted him to leave her, he refused and and insisted that he that he would and marry her. He also threatened 03.2025, the and threatened to kill her before accused came to her house, beat her, leaving. The complainant issue remained unresolved. then approached Consequently, she filed the village elders, but the i a complaint against the accused. 3. Sri Parimi Rama Rayudu, the learned that the petitioner has this case; he i conditions to be i the patitioner/Accused. 4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akila opposed in granting of bail stating that i counsel for the petitioner, submits any offence; he not committed is the sole breadwinner of his was falsely implicated iin family; he is ready to abide and urged to grant any imposed by this Court; pre-arrest bail to Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, investigation is not yet completed; if the 3 petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, he will repeat the same offence, and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. Perused the record. 5. The defacto complainant was not initially arrayed as respondent No. 2 jrj this case. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application to implead the defacto complainant as respondent No. 2. This Court directed the Sub- Inspector of Police, Tanuku Rural Police Station, to serve notice on the 6. defacto complainant. However, the defacto complainant did not choose to \ 4 engage any counsel. Sri M. Saptagiri, Advocate, was requested to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the defacto complainant. 7. Heard the arguments of the Amicus Curiae and the defacto complainant/respondent No.2. The petition filed for impleading the defacto complainant in I.A. No.1 of 2025 is allowed. The defacto complainant is hereby arrayed as respondent No. 2. As seen from the FIR lodged by the defacto complainant, there are specific overt acts against the petitioner. Hence, this Court does not deem it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to grant liberty to the petitioner to surrender pefore the learned jurisdictional Court concerned and move an appropriate application for his release before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned. 8. 4 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the learned jurisdictional Court concerned and move an appropriate application before the learned Court concerned for enlarging him on bail. The learned Court shall endeavour to dispose of the application on its own merits in accordance with law by giving due and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the learned Public Prosecutor before the learned Magistrate and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time, preferably in two (02) days. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGJSTRAR / //TRUE COPY// i SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Tanuku Rural Police Station, West Godavari District. 2. One CC to SRI. PARIMI RAMA RAYUDU, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 4. Two C.D Copies. HIGH COURT DATED:05/08/2025 ^ 0 2 SEP 2025 , m) '^jSCimMlSwlioiiX^ ORDER CRLP NO. 5722 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF.