J| IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARA THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5768 OF 2025 I I Betwee n : Bandaru Ravi Teja, S/o Apparao, Aged about 29 years, Occ- Multi Tasking Chowkidar in.Indian Navy, R/o. D.No. 25-2-25, Chaitnya Nagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. ... Petitioner/Accusecl AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Station House Officer, Anantagiri Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP at Amaravathi. .... Respondents/De-facto Comp[ainant Petition under Section 482 of BNSS & U/S 438 of Cr.P.C is filed, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent police to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR. No. 16 of 2025 on the file of ANANTAGIRI PS, petjtjon under section 528 of BNSS is filed prayl[ng that in the circumstances stated I'n the affI'daVit flled ,n support of the petition, the HI'gh court may be pleased to direct the respondent police to enlarge the petjtjoner/Accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest in connectI-On With FIR. No. 16 of 2025 on the flle of ANANTAGIRI PS, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, for the alleged offenses under sectI'On 64 (2) (f), 351 (2) BNS on such terms and condjt['ons, pending dl'sposal of CRLP 5768 of 2025, on the fI'le Of the High court. The petition comI'ng on for hearing, upon perllsjng the petition and the aff,'davjt filed I'n Support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sRi yARRAMSETTY VENKATESH Advocate for the petitioner, Assistant pubII'C prosecutor for the respondent and th_e court made the following. ORDER a The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagar-lk Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity lthe BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Cr.No.16 of 2025 of Ananthagiri Police Station, AIIuri Sitharama Raju District, registered against the pet-ltioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offence punishable under section 64(2) (i), 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for brevity [the BNS'). 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell -ls that the Accused No.1 is a distant relative of the defacto complainant and he grew well acquaintance with the defacto complainant and deceived her in the name of love and marriage and took her to various places from AU Campus and AU ladies hostel while she was studying there. On 04.05.2023 and 25.10.2023 the Accused No.1 took her to Tyda resorts and another resort near to the, said Tyda resort of Araku ` -- Valley of AIIuri Sitharama Raju District and then the Accused No.1 taking advantage of love committed rape against her forcibly on the pretext of marriage. However, the Accused No.1 prolonging the marriage issue intentionally avoiding the defacto complainant. Then I the defacto complainant inquired about the Accused No.1 and came to know that Accused No.1 was married and he has children also. Defac{o complainant realized from the intentl'ons of the Accused No.1 and warned him to get marry her, then he promI-Sed her With a written paper with his signature. sI-nee then the Accused No.1 bore grudge and avoided the calls of the defacto complainant and Propagated badly against her and threatened to kill the defacto COmPlainant. 3. Heard` learned counsel for the petI-tl-Oner and the learned AssI|S{ant PubII-C Prosecutor. perused the record. 4. Sri Yarramasetty venkatesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submI'tS that the petitioner has not committed any offence,- petitioner was falsely implicated by the police in the crime; petitioner I-S the sole breadwinner,- petI-tI|Oner would abide by any conditions to be imposed by thI-S Court; and urged to allow the petitI-On. 5| perconfra, the learned Assistant public Prosecutor, opposed I'n granting of bail stating that the petitioner is a habI~{ual Offender, some more ma{erI'al wI-tneSSeS have tO be examined; investigation is not completed; if the petitI-Oner jS enlarged on bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he would escape from the clutches of law,-and urged to dismiss the bail pe#ion. c= _==-----, -` <----' s` ` -- \- 6. The Petitioner has been working aS an employee in the Indian Navy. lt appears that there has been living relationship between the Accused No.1 and the defacto cOmPIainant. ln View Of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to consider the request of petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Accord-Ingly, this criminal petition iS allowed with the following directions: a) In the event of arrest of the Petitioner, the Petitioner ShaH b6 enlarged on bail on 6xecuting a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand Only), With two Sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting polllce officials; b) The petitioner shall make himself available for investigation aS and when required; c) The petitioner shaH not cause any threat, inducement Or promise to the prosecution witnesses; d) The petitioner shau appear before the Statlon House Offic:r concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m., till filing of the Charge Sheet. \ t|+-ii= ` llTFrUE COPYll To, sd/-iv[ sDVEPNuATVyf ¥p;c£=¥:A®jNTRIAP£ SECTION OFF,!CER 1. The station House offlcer, AnantagjrI Po'l'ce statlon, AIIurl-Sl'tharama Raju Distrl-ct. 2. One cc to SRI YARRAMSETTY VENKATESH Advocate [opucJ 3. Two cos to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HI~gh Court ofAndhra Pradesh. [o uT] 4. One spare copy KSR HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED..29/05/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.5768 of 2025 ALLOWED