APHC010344992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7142/2025 Between: 1. POLAMARASETTY RATNARAJU @ RATAN RAJU, S/O LATE PRAKSHA RAO, AGE 46 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.502, INDRAPRASTHA APARTMENT, 0PP. NSTL GATE, NAD JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. . ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravat, Guntur District Through Station House Officer, Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. HABEEB SULTAN ALI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Section482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking for granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner-accused No. 7 in crime No. 382 of 2024 of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections109, 308 (5), 318 (4), 131, 127 (2), 351 (2) and 61 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 67-A of I.T. Act. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Accused No. 1 induced de facto complainant and acquaintance has developed between them. Accused No. 1 started extorting money from de facto complainant and further blackmailed him with their intimate photographs. Further, accused No. 1 induced de facto complainant to marry her, prevented him from visiting his parents and confined him in a locked premises and administered intoxicating substances. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Habeeb Sultan Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocentand has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime.It is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinnerofhis family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioner. The petitioner undertakesto abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that based on the confession of co-accused, the present petitioner was arrayed as accused in this case. The petitioner is also one of the victims of the main accused. He parted Rs.20,00,000/- with the main accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood ofhim absconding or evading the process of law.The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation so far and assurescontinued cooperation in future proceedings.It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Sri NeelothpalGanji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses yet to be examined.It is submitted that enlargement of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice.It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioners absconding and evading the due process of law.Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioner doesnot deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 4 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides.I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. As seen from the record, there is no name of the petitioner-accused No. 7 in the FIR but accused No. 1 admitted that he is friend of accused No. 7, in between whom certain bank transactions are reflected. There are call data recordings in between the main accused, accused No. 6 and accused No. 7. There are conference calls in between accused No. 6 and accused No. 7 also. It was revealed in the investigation that accused Nos. 1 and 2 decided to extort money from de facto complainant on one pretext or the other. An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was received by accused No. 7. A learned single judge of this Court, by order dated 06-06-2025 in Criminal Petition No. 5767 of 2025, granted regular bail to the petitioner herein in crime No. 413 of 2024 of Bheemunipatnam Police Station, wherein he was shown as accused No. 3. There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused No. 7 that he has also shared his guilty intention along with the main accused to put de facto complainant under extortion and took huge amounts. Investigation is still at the nascent stage. Some more material witnesses have to be examined. It is submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is 5 required. Therefore, if the petitioner is enlarged on pre-arrest bail, it would cause in-explainable hardships to the investigation. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused No. 7, this Court is not inclined to enlarge him on bail. There are no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________________ Dr.Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:24-09-2025, JSK 6 HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7142 OF 2025 DATE: 24-09-2025 JSK