[3521 I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5978 OF 2025 Between : Rudrapati Mahesh Babu, S/o Suresh Kumar Aged about 29 yrs, Occ: VRO, R/o D.No.18-7-llB, Ambedkar Colony, Ponnur Town, Guntur District. Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. Respondent/Complainant Petition under Sections 482 of BNSS (old 438 of Cr.P.C), praying that in the circumstances. stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail and release him in the event of his arrest in connection with Cr.No. 110/2025 of Ponnur Town Pol'lce Station, Guntur District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SATHEESH KUMAR EERLA, Advocate for the Petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent and the Court made the following; [3521] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT i THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO gB±±J]INAL PETITION NO: 5978/2025 . Between : 1.RUDRAPATI MAHESH BABU, . S/O SURESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YRS, OCC VRO, R/O D.NO. 18-7-llB, AMBEDKAR COLONY, PONNUR TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by Public prosecutor, High Court for the State ofAndhra Pradesh atAmaravati. ".RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The Court made the following: ORDER: - The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with crime No.110 of 2025 of Ponnur Twon-Police Station, Gun{ur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 115(2), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Facts,. Th`brief, Of the Case are that On 08.03.2025, the de-facto complainant, who married Naga Prasad 21 years ago and had two children, _-- i___._ / allegedly advanced a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-to the petitI'Oner/accused No.1, Rudrapati Mahesh, for his personal needs, against which she obtained blank signed cheques and a promissory note as security. subsequently, the petitioner is saI'd tO have developed an illicit intention, allegedly began stalking the complainant, and pressured her to divorce her husband and marry him. lt is alleged that on 06.04.2025, the petitioner pursuaded the complainant to - _ --I,.S,- come Guntur under the pretext of repaying the loan but instead forcefully took her to a hotel, sexually assaulted her, and recorded the act on video. Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly resorted to blackmail and threats, demanding further sums and coercing her. The complainant claims that due to continued threats, srle paid Rs.2,00,000/-to the petitioner. 3. Further, when she indicated her intent to lodge a police complaint, the petitioner reportedly took her to his mother]s residence in Ambedkar Colony, Ponnur, where he, along with co-accused includI'ng his mother, Sister, and One Sumanth, allegedly abused and physically assaulted her. They further threatened her with false SC/ST atrocity allegations. Other associates of the petitioner also alleged to have harassed her over phone. It is contended that -.>- . <~`-i .rr*=. = -l`±+. the complaI'nant'S husband, upon learning of the events, severed ties with her. The complainant claims that the petitioner continued to sexually assault her under threats and later, upon learning of her pregnancy, attempted to coerce her into an abortion by administering pills and injections during another alleged incident at a Guntur hotel on 22.05.2025. I frE=* 4. ]t was due to th.ese unbearable actions, the complainant lodged a formal .~.-. __ ,-,..--------~.-i -_-.-- ` -.--.,.-_`'_--_ report, leading to the registration of Crime No.110/2025 at Ponnur Town Police Station, Guntur District. I 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and' the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. I 6. Sri Eerla Sateesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of his famj[y. Petitioner js working as VRO. The complaint of the de-facto complainant is in typewriting. The de- facto complainant on earlier occasion lodged a case against another person I'n Crime No.20 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 448, 323, 506, 509 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (for brevity [the I.P.C.I). Similarly, she lodged the complaint in Crime No,15 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 380 of £the I.p.c.,I in the same police station against another individual for commission of theft. she also lodged a complaint regarding outraging _o.i her modesty in ponnur police Station in crime No.44 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 354, 452, 506, 341 of tthe I.P.C.I Petitioner is not married yet. Whereas the de- facto complainant is married One and got two Children. Even as per the version of the de-facto complainant she gave Rs.25,00,000/-to the Petitioner as hand loan and for that she took cheques and promissory notes. lt is the version of the de-facto complainant that the petitioner buresi.des evaded payment of Rs.25,00,000/-, he pressurized the de-facto complainant to marry him by taking divorce from her husband. The petitioner has not committed any if- s.'~ `.` L+ offence and he was falsely .implicated in this case. The petitI-Oner WOuld abide by any condl'tion to be imposed by this court. 7. Per confra, Mr. Neelo{phaI Ganji, the learned Assistant public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that the some more material witnesses have to be examined; investig-ation is not completed; if the petl'tI'Oner iS 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 baI'l petition. 8. As seen from the_record, Several documents have been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner st~a_tj_pg that the de-facto complainant lodged s:±±±e±al complaints against rlum.e_Ious people on the same or other allegations. <J-~--` - The complaint of the de-facto complainant is in typewrI'ting. Petitioner is not married yet. The de-facto complainant is married one and got two children. As per the version of the de-facto complainant she gave Rs.25,00,000/- to the petitioner as hand loan and for that she took cheques and promissory notes. the petitioner besides evaded payment of Rs.25,00,000/-, he pressurized the de-facto complainant to marry him by taking dl'vorce from her husband.I 9. ln view of the above facts and cI'rCumStanCeS Of the Case, this Court is l'nclined to consider the request of petitioner for grant of anticipatory baI'l. 10. Accordingly, this criml-nal petition is allowed with the following directl-ons: a) ln the event of arrest of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), with two sureties nE=E. ` .-I .s- each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting /I police officials; b) The petitioner shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required; c) The petitioner shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; d) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e.J On every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. e) The petitioner shall not leave the district limits viithout the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned, ll, Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. //TRUE COPY// ` sD/-U.Ski DEVI- AS SslEScTTA[No%o5FGFllScTE: R Fol Tol 1. The Station House Officer, Ponnur Town Pol|lce Station, Guntur District 2. One CC to SRl. SATHEESH KUMAR EERLA Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] 4. One spare COPY Kj ffi?":N-ffias HIGH COURT DR.YLRJ DATED :25/06/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.NoI5978 of 2O25 ALLOWED Fgdr+NAIit a g.; ; i a \\\\\\\