FTRJDoA¥riToHuEs:pLNREDEVsEENNNDTTHTRA=YNTOyFFJ[UvLEY i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI .:ifar? E=lllr`^`, I, lr -, I_I ,_. ._. . _ _ _ _ _ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RACE 'tl CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6895 OF 2025 Between: ------------I --III`,I-I,V. I,I,,J `Jr J£UJ£O S§§{§§ I JtL Manthri RahuI Patnaik, s/o. Durga Prasad, Aged about 27 years, Occupation WFM Supervisor, concentrix, R/o. Flat No. 308, Happy Homes-Il, Velampeta Pendurthi, visakhapatnam city. PetitI-Oner/Accused No.1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by PublI-C Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravati through station House officer, pendurthi police Stall-On Visakhapatnam city Respondent Petition under sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C(New Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya NagarI-k Suraksha sanhita,2023), is fI-led PrayI-ng that l'n the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal PetI'tiOn, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner i.e Al on Regular bail in Crime No. 255 of 2025 of Pendurthi Police stall-on, visakhapatnam city Dated: 29.05.2025 U/s 69, 79, 351(3) RAN 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) . The petitI'On COmI-ng On for hearing, upon perusI'ng the PetitI-On and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B.SUDHAKAR KUMAR, Advocate for the petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent, the court made the following ORDER ~-..-i --.--,--.`-~ , :: .,`..;,......:..:..,,,..,-; APHCO10318042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TwENTY FIVE [3369] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RAO cR[M]NAL PETI+lON NO: 6895 OF 2025 Between : f1.MANTHRI RAHUL PATNAIK, S/O. DURGA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. OCCUPATION WFM SUPERVISOR, CONCENTRIX, R/O. FLAT NO. 308, HAPPY HOMES-LL, VELAMPETA PENDURTHl, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY. .I.PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravati. through Station House officer, Pendurthi Police Station Visakhapatnam City ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C., and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may please to enlarge the Petitioner i.e., A.1 on Regular bail in Crime No. 255 of 2025 of Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam City Dated: 29.05.2025 U/s 69, 79, 351(3) RM/ 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. B.SUDHAKAR KUMAR Coumsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagar-lk Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/A1, 2 seekI'ng bail, in CrI-me, No.255/2025 of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner and others forthe offences under Sections 69, 79, 351 (3) r/w 3(5) of the B.N.S. 3. The pros;cutio`n's case, in brief, is that the de-facto comp]ainant, an employee at Concentrix, Isukathota, had known the petitioner (A1) for three years. On 29.05.2025, she gave a report to the police that the accused professed love and promised marriage, leading her to enter into a relationship. Relying on this assurance, she alleges the accused coerced her into a physical relationship over the past two years, frequently engaging in sexual acts inside his car at simhapuri Layout Colony while returning from work. After her parents left for Australia in November 2024, he began visiting her home and continued exploiting her sexually against her will through threats and repeated false promises of marriage. ln March 2025, upon discovering she was pregnant, she informed the petitioner (A.1), who initially claimed he would speak to his parents and later stated they had agreed to the marriage, asking her to wait until her parents returned from Australia. Subsequently, his behavior changed, and wheh she questioned him, he refused to marry her and admitted he was in love with another woman, Taruni of Pendurthi, stating he had only used her for physical pleasure. When she informed A17s parents and younger brother about her pregnancy and the relationship, they initially agreed to the marriage but later withdrew and stopped responding. Despite repeated requests, they refused the alliance. A2, A3, A4, and A5 (mother, father, brother, and junior mother of A1) abused her with filthy language, threat~ened her, and dismissed her concerns. Consequently, she reported the matter to the `police, leading to the FIR. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Police falsely implicated the petitioner without any iota of evidence; the petitioner was arrested on 29.05..2025, and has since been in judicial custody; the pe{iti.oner's earlier bail application (Crl.M.P.No.1779 of 2025) before the VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, was dismissed mechanically on 20.06.2025 without proper consideration; since, the investigating officer has examined all the material witnesses and collected the necessary evidence, there is no risk of evidence tampering if the petitioner is granted bail 5. On the other hand, Sri G.NeelothpaI, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on either side reiterated their submissiohs on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report. 7. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on either side reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition , and the report. 8. ln MasroorV. Sfafe ofU.P.7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: 13. ... Though at the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of evidence and`detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided, but there is a need to indicate in such order reasons for prima fac-Ie - concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even according to the prosecution's case, the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was a long standing consensual physical relationship 1 (2009) 14 SCC 286 4 without any element of deception from its inception, as such, the same cannot be a ground for lodging the FIR for the offences mentioned above. 10. This Court views that not every instance of engaging in sexual relations with a woman under the promise of marriage constitutes rape. It cannot be universally stated that sexual intercourse under such a promise will always amount to rape. Each case must be examined individually, considering the specific facts and the surrounding circumstances of the situation. ll. A pel''usal of the record shows th'at both the petitioner and the de facto complainant are majors working at the same company. According to the complain'ant, they had been in a relationship for three years before the report was filed. The petitioner's counsel contends that the petitioner is about 27 years old, and the complainant is about 38. The' learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the petitioner gained her trust by promising marriage and engaged in sexual relations multiple times. Given their educational backgrounds, i{ can be inferred that both parties had full knowledge and understanding of their actions. The complainant lodged the report on 29.05.2025, indicating a substantial delay as the relationship began two years earlier. Considering the significant delay in filing the complaint and the partiesJ educational qualifications, it is reasonable'to conclude that they were likely aware of the consequences of the'lr actions. 12. ln NIahesh Damu Khare V. The State of Maharashtra and Ore.2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: 31. ln our view if criminality is to be attached ,Io such prolonged physical relation'shib at a very belated stage, it can lead to serious consequences. It will open the scope for imputing criminality to such long term relationships after turning sour, as such an allegation can be made even at a` belated stage to drag a person in the juggernaut of stringent criminal 2 MANU/SC/1252/2024 5 process. There is always a danger of attributing criminal intent to an otherwise disturbed civil relationship of which the court must also be mindful. 32. It is evide`nt from the large number of cases decided by this court dealing with similar matters as discussed above that there is a worrying trend that consensLlal relationships going on for prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence. 13. ln NIaheshwar Tigga V. The State of Jharkhand3, the Horible Supreme Court held that: 20. We have no hesitation in concluding that the consent of the prosecutrix was but a conscious and deliberated choice, as distinct from an involuntary action or denial and which opportunity was available to her, because of her deep-seated love for the AppeIIant leading her to willingly permit him liberiies with her body, which according to normal human behaviour are permitted only to a person with whom one is deeply in love 14. ln Dhruvaram IVlurlidhar Sonar vs. The S-tale of Maharashtra and ors,4, the HonJble Supreme Court held that: 20. Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala tide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is also a distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the Accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the Accused and not solely on account of the misconception created by Accused, or where an Accused, on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. Such cases must be treated differently. lf the complainant had any mala fide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape. The acknowledged 3 MANU/SC/0725/2020 MAN U/SC/1518/2018 6 cro^nns.et:,:tu^al^_p_hacy_s:c_I?I , ,re!atio_nship between the parties would not constitute an offence under section 376 of the I-nJianrE-:;;I Cv:du:. 15. The two paramount considerations, namely, the ljke[l'hood of the accused fI6eing from justice and his tamperl'ng with prosecution evidence, relate to ensuring a fair case trial in the course ofjustjce. Due and proper weI-ght should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. :=. ln prataP Singh v. state of HimachaI Pradesh5, the H-lgh Court of HimachaI Pradesh held that.' 6;m:spp::trifvro:+ +thh^at'£:_d~-ltd __f!e P.et-It-I?her ever promise to marry the pdre:tsQ:rCmuitnr:XH aritnr:nh~e +f:r^St^_?I.:_c: i: , ?I?o. a que:ti;n -t-;at--ca':'u;nyly ";e ?A::;rr:inn:nd :^uri^n_g: :hl: pourse__.of trial, but dr;;;'-:;e `';uo; ;:::mu::I:ncuees wnh:It:i:a:=: i:.H :.ai+dL ^tO_..:_e _s_:fl.ic!:.!t 5noug-h--i;-c-u';ai'l' vt;;"I;;:i;;a:;tense petitioner. Bail is the rule and jail the exceuptio-;. 1F:=¥Q:::^W:ru!d_e_:?:Fe fro,m the conspectus of the aforesaid case law is t:::Dart+ t^hfeI,P^r^e:_O~nV~iC:i:n stare, th ere 'is a p;e-s-u-;-pt;;; I ;f-;;:oUcaeOnCc:V;:e of:Jfe::iaOIf QkneHeP!n!^a^_!`:_rs|:_n_ in cystody i_s {o a-;;;-rr;';'i: v:;;ill'J;I;;;:; ;::Ce i;h.ent^r:a! ,:^n^d^t^o^ :eLC_e:V_e the..sentenc; that ;i; -;; ;'=s:;;."ui;h':Lyd::e:;:oen isa\:a::ash:I:I:,O^Sfed_t^:^b_:A ,p::^n i_i-IVe Or ,P,reVentjV;:ire;-IOru-Sv;;:: ;; 'aclleu;£t;::u:r af:: i:aab!lliitn¥ nO~f :_::er:a_I i,: support the reof a re -;:ii-i:: -:vn;yv::;'s-iud::aut'i'o:'s f::I :`:G;I:a i^n^g_b:i!,_ A_n~o_i_h:r f=c.tor wh_ich ; a-s ;; -;;bvo';:e fun":;nc: ail:u;;S= dre::yn:+n hc^oT,:_e+n:_eTen:?nd_ corclusion 6f--tri~a; ~ai;:;;IIl' ;;I: 'uac'cOuL::ed cc:onnnv;:fi:en kQ:1P::n :{Cu+SLt^OdLy_. _f,Or. inde!-In.i.fe _ Period, iir;i i;;I ';i ut;ueuOpCreu_ croonav.i^c:i::I^`S+i:a~g^e, if the trial is not likel; i; -ie--';;n;;;d:i L;th%:a-a reasonable time. 1Qlt;D!tH:Sn^:O^rfe+Lt^h=:__S=ttlpd, ,i.hat .the object of bail is to secure the attht=nQdn:,::^enOf^:h+eh ^ac~::_s_::_?i_ :Pe ,i.rial ,. apt i.ir= i;a;i;-st ;: i:ec:;;ieL:I ;n t\h^lehasfohl:trio:?: th_:_qLu_=::iO: YhP:her bail sh;;id-;;'drt;dw:r areHfP:'sCeud"ils wnhtehtahne^:;.: :s^ HPr_a.!_a|b!= , that...tPe. party will -a;;eo:r-'{;ut;;; G;sOCturi:I. ?:hre^:!:He:I::,I::Ln_0_t|:_O_ Pe.withheld as 'a pu;ii;-mr:n-;. i;e `g':u; '£as":;:i toe:rioonns:doe::hn::!^enr^t:h_e~r: :1:_ =:y POS,Sibi!ty of-i;; ~:;;;:;d ;::I;::;nOgd::h esv:dn::ricehaor:::lnu+e^nrdci+n_g ~w_jtr_:s,ses,?i?. o.;_ce t-;-;s: -t=sisvua;:I:'apt::;i'£d ,w:I:'il sf!no!d.nb^ethg^rran_i_e~!_to _?n u.nder trial whi;; -;;:;s;;;pu:;a-n;LlaO:Cv;=%eld f:nor am::^tfeLr^:+n_g_Ie_, _r:rely,?a pccuseJ -;;rs-o';vw;;rev;;:;: :r3eeV£oWme:s inhi:.:I:Cthhabnett::rLP^OS-:ti_o_n -.to loot a_fter his-:-i:: ';;i tv: 'JpUryo-p:;yCudU:;i:i h::nsae:fA:h:,nn^i: h_e :y::, in .Custody. Th;s:ir-a;; 'uo:n:;v_:::'nyt uoCfle:::I df:2:onndfsaun+p^orn^ :an+:?:::fy. _pf cirpu.;sip;i::s o=un'd` tvh'e I :v:#:I.aalt'i;eul efDf=:i thereof enters into judicial verdict. The C6u-ri -st;=';s;;I;rf:tut:nCy Csli'neg;: 5 MANu/HP/0646/2016 17- 7 ?ircT_m.stan_ce cannot be-treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Saw/lay Chanc'ra V. CB/6, the Hon]ble Supreme Court held that: ?.1. ln b_ail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accu:id Per.S,On at his._1rial by a reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neith?{ pu.nitive _n_or preventative. Deprivatio.n of Jibe-rty must be considered a Punishment unless it iS required tO enSur~e that an accused Person Will Stand his trial When Called upon. The courts owe more than verPa.I. r?spect to the.pripciple that punishment begins after conviction, a,nd that .£very man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and dulj found guilty. 22. F!om the e.ar!iest i_iTeS! jt _Was _a_PPrebiated that detention in custody PPndirg .?OmPletiOn O_f the trial COuld be a Cause Of great hardship. Froin i.imp tp .ti.me, npcpssity q_emands that some unconviicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendanc-e at the trial but ir sucP. cases., "nec_ess_ity" is the operative test. In this country, it would b_e quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrih6d i'n the Constitu_ti_op i_hat_ any.person should be punished in respect of any matter upon which he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he sh.o.uld_be deprived of h-ls liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the. witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23-. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content. lt would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former concluct, whether the accused has been convicted for it or not, 6r to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. ln Sfafe of Kera/a vs. Raneef 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held In deciding bail applications an important factor which sho'Jld Certainly be taken into consideration by the Court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? ls Article 21 of the Constitution,-which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. ; taoAIN2L,1sSc9ocoo410,2011 8 13. In the present case the Respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in paragraph 2 of his counter affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like br. Manette in Charles Dicken's novel 'A Tale of Two Cities', who forgot his profess-ion and even his name in the Bastille. 19. At this stage, the allegations against the petitioner are subject to the triaI's outcome. The trial is anticipated to take a considerable amount of tI|me. Bail serves the purpose of allowing an accused to remain free until his guilt or innocence is determined. lt is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused wouI'd tamper with the prosecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. 20. The petitioner's continued preventive custody is based on an unsubstanti'a{ed suspicion that he might tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. Given the penal provisions invoked vis-a-vis pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the coinpliance with terms and'conditions mentioned in this order. Given the same, the petitioner's release would not cause in any way hampering of investigation. 21. The material on record indicates that the petitioner has a permanent residence, with no reasonable concern of absconding and no prior criminal record. The trial's commencement remains uncertain as the investigation` is still ongoing. There is no material to suggest that granting bail would obstruct justice. This Court finds no risk of the +petitioner tampering with witnesses or hampering the investigation. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.05.2025, by which time a significant Q\` ch``S 9 portion of the investigatI-On iS likely complete. Though the delay may not be fatal {o the criminal proceedings as jt always depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, this court views that the petitioners make at least a case out for grant of anticipatory bail u/see.438 of cr.p.c. Given these circumstances, this court concludes that releasing the petitioner on baI'l Will not impede the investigation. However, due to the seriousness of the allegations, stringent conditions will be imposed to ensure the petitioner's attendance throughout the investigation and trial. 21. For the reasons stated above, this Court views that bail can be granted to the petitioner/A.1 with the following conditions: (i) Petitioner/A.1 shall be released on bail on executing. a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Vll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Visakhapatnam. (ii) On such release, petitioner / A.1 shall appear before the investigating officer concerned once in a week i.e., every Sunday. between 10.00 AM and 05.00 PM, for a period of three (03) months. (iii) The petitioner/A.1 shal.I not, directly or indirectly, make any . inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dis;uade him/her from disclosing such facts {o the Court or to any Investigating or Police Officer and shall cooperate with the investigating agency. 22. It is explicitly clarified that the observations made in this order are preliminary and pertain solely to the decision on the present application 1O without indicating a stance on the case's merits. The Investigating Agency is free to investigate without being influenced by the observations in this order. ®23. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is a//owec/. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/-N. ASSISTAN //TRUE COPY// SE I To] 1. The 2. The City VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Visakhapatnam. Station House officer, pendurthi police Station Visakhapatnam 3. The Superintendent, central prison, visakhapatnam. 4. One CC to SRl. B.SUDHAKAR KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofA.P [OPUC] 6. One spare copy psk HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED: ll/07/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.6895 of 2025 ALLOWED I \ .