hlc= IN'THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT-. THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7261 OF 2025 Betwee n : r Buthotti Polaiah, S/o. Nagaiah, aged 27 years, SC-Mala, Harijanwada Balayapalli Mandal, R/o. Mallemala village, Tirupati District. Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Balayapalli Police Station) Rep. by the public prosecutor High Court ofAndhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. Victim Girl. (R2 is impleaded as per the Court order dated 07.08.2025 in lA No. 01/2025 in CRLP No. 7261 of 2025.) Respondent/Complainant petition under sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C(New Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023), is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct release Of the petitioner/accused on Bail pending enquiry and trial in connection With Cr.No.34/2025 of Balayapalli Police Station and pass The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri G VENU MADHAV CHOWDARY, Advocate for the petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent, the Court made the following ORDER RE!!!ii;i==:-==:-- APHCO10347382025 EETri lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7261/2025 [3521 I Between : BUTHOTTI POLAIAH, S/O. NAGAIAH, AGED 27 YEARS, SC-MALA, HARIJANWADA BALAYAPALLI MANDAL, R/O. MALLEMALA VILLAGE, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. .HPETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (Balayapalli Police Station) Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District. ..IRESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: G VENU MADHAV CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for brevity [the Cr.P.C.I)/ Sections |.* ```+a A+- A `\ 2 Dr. YLI CrI.P.No.7261 of 2O2` Dated O7.08.2025 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity {the BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused on bail in Cr.No.34 of 2025 of Balayapalli Police Station, Tirupati District, registered against the petitioner/Accused herein for the offences punishable under sections 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for brevity lthe lPC'), 69, 351 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ithe BNS]), Section 6 read with 5 (I)(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity [the POCSO Act!). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.04.2025 at about ll.loo hours, the complainant reported that the accused, who is her brother-in- law, had repeatedly committed penetrative sexual assault on her under the Pretext Of love and a Promise Of marriage While she was working at Loyal Textiles, Menakuru. The complainant is currently fI-Ve months Pregnant, and this came to the notice of her parents. upon learnl-ng of the pregnancy, the complainant and her parents approached the accused and his parents to arrange a marriage. However, the accused and his parents refused, and the accused even threatened the complainant to terminate the pregnancy, Hence, the FIR. 3. Sri G.Venu Madhav Chowdary, the learned counsel for the petitioner COntendS that the Petitioner iS inn|OCent Of the alleged offence and has been . falsely implicated by the police. lt is further submitted that the petitioner is the ts_-33ird3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7261 of 2025 Dclted 07.08.2025 sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 112 days. The entire investigation is completed and the Charge Sheet jS also filed in this case. The petitioner and the de-facto complainant/respondent No.2 are relatives, and there was a love affair between the ,petitioner and respondent No.2, and there was consensual' intercourse between them. lt takes indefinite time for the learned Special Judge to take up the matter for tr-lal, hence it is urged to grant bail to the petitioner on whatsoever grounds this Court deems it fit. 4. Per cot,ira, Ms.P.Akh-lla Naidu, The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that respondent No.2 is carrying eighth month pregnancy, and though the preliminary charge sheet has been filed, a DNA test has to be conducted on the child to be born to respondent No.2. The learned Special Judge, after recording the statements Of the learned Special Public Prosecutor before the learned Trial Court, refused to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground that there is a life threat and also compulsion of abortion of her pregnancy, ,and therefore urged to dismiss the petition. 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that there is a life threat to the respondent No.2 and also compulsion from the petitioner that the respondent No.2 should get aborted, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail. lf a condition is imposed on the petitioner that he shall not enter into the District i 4 Dr. YL CrI.P.No.7261 of 20` Dc,ted 07.08.202L where the respondent No.2 is residing, it would suffice the Case and the apprehension of the respondent No.2 would be renrJV®d. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant public prosecutor. perused the record. 7. As seen from the record, the Investigating Officer has filed the preliminary charge Sheet. Potency test was conducted on the petitioner. The submission of the victim/respondent No.2 was recorded under Section 164 of fthe cr.p.C'. All the material witnesses have been examined by the Investigating Officer. The relatives of respondent No.2, who are acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, were also examined. Thus, major portion of the investigation has been completed, except subjecting the baby of respondent No.2 for DNA in future. 8. The respondent No.2 states that she got acquaintance with the petitioner in the month of August-2022. Whereas record revels that the petitioner is brother-in-law of the respondent No.2. FIR further revels that there was consensual sexual intercourse in between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 for several times. Later the respondent No.2 conceived and now she is carrying eighth month pregnancy. lt is further alleged in the FIR that the petitioner would not marry the respondent No.2 unless she gets aborted. ln the FIR, she further states that the petitioner got acquaintance with her in the month of August-2022, whereas in her statement recorded under ______---i Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7261 of 2025 Dated 07.08.2025 Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.,I she reveals that the petitioner is her brother-in- law. 9. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and also the consensual sexual intercourse in between them for quite long {jme, the age of the respondent No.2 i.e., 19 years and the period of detention in the judicial custody, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with some stringent conditions. i. The petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on bail subJ'eCt tO he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satl-sfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First CIass, Venkatagiri. ii. The petitioner/Accused shall appear before the station House Officer concerned on every saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. iii. The petitioner/Accused is directed not to enter into the District unless otherwise directed by the learned Special Court. iv. The petitI'OneF/=Accused sha" not commI't Or indulge in commission Of any Offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make hI'mSelf O| L= i._ 6. Dr. YL` CrI.P.No.7261 of 2O`< Dated 07.08.202s aval'lable for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The petitioner/Accused sha" not, dI-reCtly or I-ndirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. vii. VI|Olatl-On Of any of the above conditions would entail cancellation of the'bail granted by this court. The learned special Court is also at liberty to cancel the bail if it is brought to the notice of the learned special Judge that the petI'tiOner has violated any of the conditions. 10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. . SD/- B.PRA ASSISTANT R sECT[ON OFFICER //TRUE COPY// 1 To, 1. The Special Judge for speedy trial offences under pocso Act, 2012,Nellore. 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First class, Venkatagiri. 3. The Superintendent, Nellore Central Prison, NeIIore District. 4. The SHO., Baiayapalli Police Station, NeIIore District. 5. One CC to SRl. G VENU MADHAV CHOWDARY Advocate [OPUC] 6.' Two CCs to the' PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofA.P [OPUC] {l '7-. One spare copy | psk `t ,., I \ *3| =EE]-L HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED : 07/08/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.7261 of 2025 ALLOWED