\`i` + ``\```. lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, ,+;;i\.I: TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO`` :` CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7895 OF 2025 EJE=iiH,i-FgffiriasEE Between : Saladi Sai Tulasi Vishwanath, S/o Eswara Rao, Aged 29 yrs, D.No.ll-7 Gachapu Street, Narsipatnam Village & Mandal, Anakapalli District. Petitioner/Accused A-1 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through the S.H.O., P.M., Palem P.S., Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, at Amaravathi. 2. Katha Vani Aparna, D/o Katha Ramulu, Aged 30 yrs, Visalakshi Nagar, opp.P.M. Palem Stadium, Visakh'apatnam. Respondent/Comp]ainan€ petition under section 480 & 483 of BNSS., is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds file~d in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to Enlarge the petitioner on Bail in connect-Ion with th6 crime No. 299/2025 of P.M.,Palem P.S., Visakhapatnam by Allow-lng the Criminal Petition. The petition coming on for hear-lng, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri, Fi slvA SAI SWARUP, Advocate flor the Petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent No.1, and of Sri Ramineni Gauri Srinadh Chowdary, Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2, The Court made the fo[]owiBlg ORDER: . . T ® The Court made the following ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity [the BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.299 of 2025 of PM Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offence punishable under SeG{iOn 69, 79, 351(2),115(2) and 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity fthe BNS'). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: i / . \ bLt- - 2. The case of the prosecution is thatthe de facfo com.plainant lodged a report against the petitioner stating that having believed the words of petitioner, she and,the petitioner lived together as wife and husband and the petitioner enjoyed her sexually through his deceitful means, false promise to marry her and thereby insulted her modesty and threatened her with dire consequences several times whenever she asked for marriage. C®NTENT!ONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is -innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely 4 implicated in this case. lt is further submitted that the petitioner has old aged parents and the petitioner is the only earning member of his family. The- petitioner is permanent resident of Narsipatnam Village and Mandal of Anakapa!!i District..JHe undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may t| I be imptj$3ed by this Court. The petitioner was arrested on 27.06.2025 on his surfencf.3r. He is in jail for the past 77 days. ln the light of the foregoing, learnefj counsel prays that the petition be allowed in the interest of justice. ARGliMENTS OF THE STATE: 4. Ms.Akhi]a Naidu, -learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that investigation is still pend'Ing and Charge Sheet iS not yet filed. lt iS Submitted that enlargement of the petitione+ 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. infltlence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice.]]t is also urged that there exists a real and imminent r'lsk of the Petitiofler absconding and evading the due Process Of law. Given the gravity of thejallegat'lons and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is subinitted that the petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bai[ahd it is urged to d'lsmiss the bail petition. \ 5. Sri Ramineni Gaury Srinadh Chowdary, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the 2nd res`pondent reiterated the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. And further argued that remaining accused were not arrested; the petitioner deceived the Respondent No.2 with false promise of marriage and sexually abused her, and it is urged to dismiss the petitioner as the pet-ltio-her is not entitled for the discretionary relief. Tr` I _ _ E|l[ )\ POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. ln the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentionc``, of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: "Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?'' ANALYSIS: 7. Learned counsel for the petl-tl'oner relied on a decision of the HonJble Apex Court in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India & ors in w.p (crI.) No.60 of 2023 at Para Nos.33 -and 34 held as under.- ":3_?_._ !p:_tPp instant ease, i.t is cI.ear froT the facts that during the pendency of the i:y_3sfi_gla_t!Pnl,,_Sup_PI_?men,ta^ry pharge.s.hepts were filed _by th-e lnvistigation'Aie-;;y j!s!. before tP? e:piry of.60 days, vyith__tPe _purpose of Scuttling the Fight to 5if=-u'It b_a_i_I__scc:ueP !n favo,ur i,he .£c?used.. This fectrial position was missi;d by th6-i;i;I court., a.nd..instead of offer-Ing default bail to the accused, the trial cb-;ri r!e~c_h_a_?_icsl_J¥. 2?I,PPted tPe inp?r]plete chprg_e _sheets filed by-the lnvestig;ti;6 Age.nc.y, and..further.coptinueq the remand Of the accused be-yond the mi;i-i;;fi P?riOd SP.ecified. .Tfte I_pvestigating Agency and the trial c6urt, thus, failed-i6 o_b_sale.ry_e, _tP€_m_alT,Pptle Of. law, ?nP .a?tpd in a m.annpr w_hich was m-ahifes{Iy a;ii-{r;iv a_nd violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the accused. 3J4_,I_Fylep _3,i tee, co^st a,I rep.e_tftti,o_I, yp fin_d !t_pertinent to mention that the right of d£3f_a_,u_It__Pail !nP?r, Seeti.pn 167(2)_ a_f tfie erPC_ is not merely a statutory right,uidt-a ffu:;rds^au_mc^f.;;ma.:L:!glha;n_tche:t!f_::n_wg_s_!flryO5:_ tA£#!:!££%S ionfgtlhyel nCs:g_nn:ft;:u!t#: np roof:endd:;r=rfuhoe;i:iiliy;:S tl2_ _en_sL!lr? t±Pt no accused_ Person.iS Subject tO unfettered End arbitrary poiri;r -;f t!s_ _sit_ate. The prpcess., of r_emend afld custody, in their practical ma;if€:i-iJ6;:, c_r=?te a, h,yge. di.:parity. of power_ between the investigating authority and trf6 ac?used.. While th_ere is no doubt in our minds that-arri:st and r6mand a;e ?_:frsT_e_ly ,cry,ci?I.for.the. sm.Doth funcfic?ning of the invest;gation authority i6r ih;e P_ulr_PO_S_3_?_f__€ft?in.ing justSe, hPwev.Pr, it .iS also extremely irrfportant to be 6ognizant ?f`? power imbaI€nce_. Therefore, it becomes essential io pI-ace certain crii5k;i;a balances upon the lnvestigat-ion Agency in order to pravent the ' harasSwi€ri{--:f accused persons at their hands''. 8| The leamed counsel forthe petitioner also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul v| State of Assam in + SLP (CRL.) No.2009 of 2017 toer Mac/ar, B.Lokur, I) wherein at para No.40, it is held as under: l[Procedure for obtaining default bail: 4,0. ln i,P,p a.B9S.€.an.i Ca.Se, it_ WPS also argued by learned coLInSel for the State that tP=__petition^5r1 _did not. eP.PIT f,or .'qef.au.It _bail'._o_-n dr after 4th Janu;iv,--i;o1-i-irir ii{h J~a£nL:9ry,,_?9_1_7 3P_ W,hiC^fl .d€,te his irqef?PSib:Ie right got_extinguisri6d bn-tis ffil-i;6 of the charge sh`eet. Strictly speaking this is correit since i-he petit-lone; ii;iistd € =c=---,.-_. -I k ±=S;i:±±=+:L`ngngZ§LiLrt-|==:ZgEg € ~ for regular bail on llth January, 2017 in the Gauhati High Court -he made no specif-IC application for grant Of [default bail]. However, the application for regular bail filed by the accused on llth January, 2017 did advert to the statutory period for filing a charge sheet having expired and that perhaps no charge sheet had in fact being filed. ln any event, this issue was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner in the High Court and it was considered but not accepted by the High Court. The High Court did not reject the submission on the ground of maintainability but on merits. Therefore `lt is not as if the petitioner did not make any ap.plication for default bail -such an application was definitely made (if not in writing) then at least orally before the High Court. ln our opinion, in matters of personal liberty, we cannot and should not be too technical and must lean in favour of personal liberty. Consequently, whether the accused makes a written application.for ldefault baiI' or an oral application for 'default baiI' is of no consequence. The concerned court must deal with such an application by considering the statutory requirements namely, whether the statutory period for filing a charge sheet or chaIIan has expired, whether the chargp sheet or challan has been filed and whether the accused is prepared to and does furn`ISh bail". 9. ln Rakesh Kumar PauI's case referred supra, toerDeapak Gt,pta, J) a{ Para No.3 held as under: " 3) ln all cases where the minimum sentence is less than 10 years but the maximum sentence is not death or life imprisonment then Section 167(2)'(a)(ii) will apply and the accused will be entitled to grant of 'default baiI' after 60 days in case charge-sheet is not filed." 10. Leamed counsel for the petitioner also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka I'n State of Karnataka v. Kalandar Shafi in Cri.P.No.13459 of 2024 dated 13.12.2024 wherein at Para No.14 (iii) & (iv), it is held as under: L€14. (iii) The offences in the case at hand, does not bear a minimum threshold sentence of ten years, but is extendable or to an extent,of ten years, which would mean, discretion available to the concerned Court to impose punishment up to ten years. Therefore, the minimum threshold is not ten years. (iv) Completion of investigation in a punishment which is up to ten years is undoubtedly 60 days. Rest of the other offences, be it death, life imprisonment of ten years and more, would be 90 days." ll. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State+of Maharashtral wherein at para No.9 it is-held as under: ''9...ln our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning sour or DarinerS becoming __distant Cannot be a around for inVOkinCI Criminal 1 MANU/SC/0787/2025 tt-fi = ,_i _RT T_aChirlerY Of the State: Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence. This Cou_rf_ has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions, a_nP has te[med it a folly3 to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under sectibn 376 lPC". 12. In Ktma/ Chafferjee v, Sfafe of West Bengaf the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: €LWe ha_ve heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel appearing_for lhe State has relied upon the definition of 'Rape' and would argue that the consent given by the minor is no consent aird it YOyld still be a _rppe. In our considered opinion, as regarding the rape being committed by the appellant when the. prosecutri.x was a minor, there ` is absolutely no evidence, and definitely no forensic evidence with the Prosecution. It is only an allegation in the FIR after more than 03 years, in order to make o_ut a case under the POCSO Act, that such an act of `rape was committed three years back when she was a minor. she also ca_tegori_cally states that she consented to the act as there was a promise of marriage by the appellant". A3. The HonlbleApexCourt'ln Naim Ahmed v. State of(NOT) ofDelhi3 at para No.21 and 22 it is held as under: I:#r=nacc±cs£uen%a3€#hfabodearhnsaEe€f%ehou5€arEehfrfeoea!§§€gs±un_r§so#hm#cfsoneu;S:_odi§nf£#£aa±s nodot:fooeenoof#unf§££:£foc:igi i3±s£g7ge#^5f±.8eo£e^n#cee±dnsai:£h£#dhi^±fos£ifen:aieeiacveew£:ais£ga=odEninai;a:i:iii^£oii:ie3fc£fFaf#i f eAi;i:iii;coif±safsjhs§ie±hn:igrrihoa£±vehe given a promise with all seriousness to marry her, and subsecluentlv mig_t!± h?ve epcounter.ed cerfa_ip ciroumstanpes unforeseen bv him or the_ circun!stan_ces_ beyond his control, which prevented him to- fulfil h_is af±#;; rr:eosaetc:heu£c:aesaaec#:bsurofdnacdfheoroeftnhd:ougff#nen:to€ #rnaogveerd 6 In the instant case, the prosecutrix who herself was a married woman h_aying-ithrep chiI_dren, could not be said to have acted under the alleged false promise given by the appellant or under the misconception of -fact while giving the consent to have sexual relationship with the appeIIant. 2 Spl Leave Petition (CrI.) No.7004 of 2025 3(2023) SCC Online SC 89 \.-_ [ E- e-t*r,*-= `3 Updisputedly, she continued to have such relationship with him at least for aP_out five years till she gave complaint in the year 2015. Even if the allegations made by her in her deposition before the court, are taken on their fpce value, then also to construe such allegations as "rape" by the appeI.Iapt, would be stretching the case too far. The prosecutrix biing a ` married woman .and the mother of three children was matured and intelligent enough to understand the significance and the consequences of thp mc!raI _pr immoral quality of act she was consenting to. Even ' I)fhervise, if her entire conduct during the course of such relationship with i.he .accused,_ is QIosely seen, it appears that she had betriay6d her hu_sband_ and three chiI-dren by havi'n-g relationship with the accdsed, for w.ho_m she had developed liking for him. She had gone to stay with him a_Wring the subsistence of her marriage with her husband, to live a better life with the accused. Till the time she was impregnated by the accused in the year_2011, and she gave birth to a male child through the loin of the accused, she did not have any complaint against the accused of he hev.ing given false promise to marry her or. having cheated her. she also vi_sited the native place of the accused in the year 2012 and came to know that he was a married man having children also, still she continued to live wi_th lhe accused at another premises without any grievance. she even ?.btaineq_P!vorce from her husband by mutual consent in 2014, leaving her tr!.ree children with her husband. It was only in the year 2015 when Some disputes mu_st have taken place between them, that she filed the present complaint. The accused in his further statement recorded under section 313CrPC had stated that she had filed the complaint as he refused to fulfil her demand to pay her huge amount. Thus, having regard to the facts and eircuapstances of`the case, it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the prosecutrix had given her consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under the misconception of fact, so as to h_old lhe appellant guilty of having committed rape within the meaning of Section 375 IPC". 14. ln Bhawar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh4 the Honlble Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh rejecting the request for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner therein, and granted pre- arrest bail to the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 69 of 'the BNS). 15. In Pr,-th,-v,ta/-an v. sfafe5 at para Mos.6 and 7 it is held as under: " r¥ rraaottffra:sc:thetado; thane:v%o:lfocwir### need_ to be satisfied : first, the accused promised to marry the prosecutr-lx so_Ie!y_1.p_ secure consent for'sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning; second, that the ~-- '.-.$ 4@SLP (Crl.)No.3475 of 2025 52025 SCC Online SC 696 -, .± Pr9.SeCutri¥_ gave h_er COnSent for Sexual relations by being directly influenced by such false promise of marriage. 7. TPp instant case is one of consensual relationship between the appellent and prosecutrix. Even otherwise, it does not appear from i_hp£ r-w¥afshe?i i:h eb : : ##a:£ :: m# :era tso? I mo; # Ra I I.itesqe;fd lsyu a£# b# :th?## Promise tO marry COuld not be fulfilled bv the appellant due to intervenin_g_ circumstances. Consequently, the relationship ended because of which tPe presept FIR came to be registered. Under these circumstances, letting thp app_ellant face trial would Pe nothing short of an abuse of the process of the Court. This cannot be permitted". 16. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner/Accuseci No.1 is that the petitioner and the de facfo complainant lived as wife arid husband for considerable length of time. The de facfo complainant alleges that she was sexually exploited by the petitioner by playing deceitful means including false promise to marry her. 'Thus, he not only cheated her but also insulted her modesty and threatened with dl-re consequences, if she insists for marriage. The petitioner was arrested on 27.06.2025 on his surrender. He was not nabbed by the police. He has been in the judicial custody for the past 77 days. Material portion of the investigation is completed. Filing of charge sheet is only a formality. So far eight (8) material witnesses have been examined. L.Ws.4 and 5 are the owner and watchman of the flat respectively wherein the petitioner and de facfo complainant lived together jn a live in relation as wife and husband. The petitioner is permanent resident of Narsipatnam Village and Mandal of Anakapalli District. He has+got fixed abode. In view of the law laid `< - down by the HonJble Apex--Court in AmoI Bhagwan NehuI, Ktma/ Chatterjee, Naim Ahmed, Bhawar Singh ar\d Prithivikyan supra, there are merits jn the present Petition. -. --.=> CONCLUSION.I 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and the period of detention that the petitioner is in jail, this court is inclined {o enlarge him on bail with the following stringent conditI-OnS: I'. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only), with two.sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of learned XVI Additional Metropolitan magistrate, Bheemunipatnam. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Ill Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, on every saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. iii. The petitl-oner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh, without prior permission from the Station Ho'use Officer concerned. iv. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not commit or indulge in COmmI'SSiOn Of any Offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall cooperate with the £ investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. I-_*~---> 10 vi. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not, directly or indirectly, 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. 18. Accordingly, the CrimI'nal Petition is allowed. //TRUE COPY// . SD/-B.PRASAD RAO A SsS:S#:cs ET R:A R To, 1, The XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam. fz 2. The Superintendent, central prison, visakhapatnam. 3. The Station House Officer, P.M. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 4. The Station House Officer, Ill Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 5. Katha Vani Aparna, D/o Katha Ramulu, Aged 30 yrs, Visalakshi Nagar, opp.P.M. Palem Stadium, Visakhapatnam. (BY RPAD) 6. One CC to Sri. R SIVA SAI SWARUP, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri. GAURY SRINADH CHAUDARY R, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. [ouT] 9. One spare copy JSS HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED:15/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.7895 of 2025 ALLOWED + r n--_i J'JL