APHC010398322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8057/2025 Between: B Ramanaiah and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. VAJJA CHETHAN KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 3 and 11, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.75 of 2025 of Srikalahasthi Rural Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 366-A, 342, 354-A, 506, 509, 109 of Indian Penal Code (for short „the IPC‟), 2 Section 5(1) r/w 6 of (for short „the IPC‟) the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short „the POCSO Act‟), Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition Of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (for short „the PCMA Act‟) and Sections 3(2) (va) (m), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short „the SC/ST POA Act‟). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.05.2024 accused No.1 and his parents along with accused Nos.2 and 3 came to the house of the complainant and while they were discussing of marriage of victim, the victim refused. However, accused No.4-mother of the victim took a knife and cut her hand attempting suicide. Accused No.5-father of the victim was also calm at that time. On 21.05.2024 in the evening, accused Nos.6 to 11 entered into the house of victim and took her to Muddampalli Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple for performing the marriage with accused No.1. On 22.05.2024 they performed the marriage of victim with accused No.1. Later the victim learnt that accused No.1 was already married and had three children and when victim questioned accused No1, his parents and his younger brother caught hold of her hair, beat her and sent her into the room with accused No.1 and accused No.1 raped the victim. All the accused forcibly performed the marriage when the victim was minor and ruined her life. 3 CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr.V.Chethan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioners are the sole earning member of their families, and their arrest would cause irreparable hardship to their dependents. The Petitionersare willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioners have got fixed abode. 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioners and custodial interrogation period was over and such custody is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 3 and 11 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the 4 Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that they may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 6. It is further urged that the Petitioners may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the integrity of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 8. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. As seen from the record, the allegations against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 3, and 11 are that they actively aided in arranging the marriage between Accused No.1 and the de facto complainant, who is a minor girl. It is further alleged that Accused No.1 maintained an illicit relationship with the mother of the de facto complainant, and that the mother pressurized the defacto complainant to marry Accused No.1, who was already married and got children, and with whom her mother has allegedly got an illegal relationship. 5 The defacto complainant after her marriage with accused No.1 was compelled to have sexual intercourse with accused No.1 against her consent. 10. The learned Single Judge of this Court, in Crl.A.No.551 of 2025, granted pre-arrest bail to Accused No.5, who is the father of the defacto complainant. The allegations against the present petitioners are altogether different from those levelled against Accused No.5 and the other accused who were granted bail, as more grievous allegations are levelled against the petitioners. Accused Nos.1 and 4 are still in judicial custody, and the investigation is at nascent stage. Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 is the father- in-law of the defacto complainant and the father of Accused No.1. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 is the mother-in-law of the defacto complainant and the mother of Accused No.1. Petitioner No.3/Accused No.11 is the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant and the brother of Accused No.1. 11. With great courage, the de facto complainant left both her marital and parental homes and lodged a report not only against her husband, in-laws, and other relatives but also against her own parents, alleging that they all conspired together and forcibly compelled her to marry Accused No.1 and also compelled the defacto complainant being a minor to have sexual intercourse with accused No.1 against her interest more particularly when accused No.1 is maintaining illicit relationship with mother of defacto complainant. There are specific overt acts attributed to Petitioner No.3 that he caught hold of the tuft of the defacto complainant‟s hair and forcibly sent her 6 into the room of Accused No.1 for sexual intercourse against her will and consent. At present, there are no merits in the case to consider the petitioners for grant of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed for present. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 12.09.2025 S D P 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8057 of 2025 Date:12.09.2025 S D P