APHC010365972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7563 OF 2025 Between: S.Usha, W/o.S.Chendil, aged 34 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.D.No.6- 230, Talari Street, Nagari, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Station House Officer, Nagari (U) Police Station, Chittoor District to release the petitioner/accu sed No.2 on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Cr.No.104 of 2025 of Nagari (U) Police Station, Chittoor District. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: % APHC010365972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7563/2025 Between: S USHA, W/0. S. CHENDIL, AGED 34 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/0. D.NO. 6-230, TALARI STREET, NAGARI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7563 of 2025 Dated 01.08.2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/Accused No.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 104 of 2025 of Nagari UPS Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 65 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’), 5 (1) read with 6, 16 read with 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity ‘the POCSO Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.06.2025, the de-facto complainant reported that Accused No.1, who is residing in the house of Accused No.2, and both of whom are neighbors of the victim girl, committed the offence. Accused No.2 got acquainted with the victim girl when she used to visit her grandparents’ house, which is located on the first floor of Accused No.2’s house. Accused No.2 introduced Accused No.1 to the victim girl, who is the daughter of the complainant. Since then. Accused Nos.1 and 2 used to speak to the victim girl in a friendly and affectionate manner, and Accused No.1 used to give her eatables occasionally. On the strength of that familiarity, about seven months 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7563of 2025 Dated 01.08.2025 ago, Accused No.1 forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the victim girl at the house of Accused No.2. When the victim girl was upset, Accused No.2 pacified her, saying there was nothing to worry about and assured her that she would take care of her. Accused No.2 also helped Accused No.1 in committing sexual intercourse with the victim girl. Accused No.1 allegedly continued to have sexual intercourse with the victim girl repeatedly for a period of one week. Thereafter, the victim girl started avoiding Accused No.1. However, for the past three days. Accused No.1 has again been compelling the victim girl to participate in sexual intercourse with him. After coming to know about the incident, the complainant lodged a report with the police. Hence, the case registered against the petitioner/Accused No.2. > was 3. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, she is ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Dr. YLft, . Crl.P.No.7563 of 2025 Dated 01.08.2025 & petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that she may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the petitioner and the learned record. 6. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No. 2, who is a lady, is that she indulged the victim girl to have sexual intercourse with Accused No.1. It is further alleged that the petitioner/Accused No. 2 facilitated the victim (who is about 15 years old) and Accused course, the victim has been arrayed as Respondent No. 2 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh and others v. Ashish Mishra\ intercourse between the No.1 in her home. Of as per the 7. In view of the above, there are specific overt acts leveled against the petitioner, attracting the provisions of ‘the POCSO Act’ against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the ^ (2002) 4 SCR 536 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7563 of 2025 Dated 01.08.2025 petitioner/Accused No.2. Hence, there are no merits in the Criminal Petition and it is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, as per the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is given to the petitioner/Accused No.2 to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned 8. and move an appropriate application before the learned Magistrate concerned. The learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, shall endeavor to dispose of the application on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time, preferably in two (02) days. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ir S FFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Nagari (Urban) Police Station, Chittoor District. 2. One CC to Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies BSV sree an HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 7563 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION