I ,,/, a IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ll^/ENTY FIVE : PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8356 OF 2025 [3521] •-i=...-+i:*i***S Betwee n : Rongali Keerthi, W/o. Bhanu Prasad, Aged 29 years, R/o D. No. 3-111, Pedavemali Village, Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram. Petitioner/Accused No. 2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 480 and 483 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the criminal Petition, the High 5ourf may be pleased to release the petitioner/Accused No. 2 on bail in Crime No. 174 of 2025 dt.18.04.2025 on the file of the Arilova Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Sri D. Ramakoteshwar Rao COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following APHCO10413132025 ELiE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (special original Jurisciiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT I THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8356/2025 AND Between : Rong`ali Keerthi The State Of Andhra Pradesh I [3521] ".PETITIONER/ACCUSED .HRESPONDENT/COMPLA[NANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. DASARI RAMAKOTESWAR RAO 'Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.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 lthe Cr.P.C.I) / Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity [the BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Cr.No.174 of 2025 of Arilova Stat'lon, Visakhapatnam, registered against I the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 herein for the offences punishable under sections 420, 506, 509 of the lnciian Penal Code,1860 (for b`revity \`` Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8356 of 2025 Dated 22.08.2025 {the I.P.C'), 21(1)(2)(3), 23 of The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (TBUDS) Act, 2019 (for short {the TBUDS Act]). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.12.2023 at about 10:00 hours at Sri Krishnapuram, Arilova, Vl-sakhapatnam, and reported on 18.04.2025 at ll:00 hours, the complainant, Smt. Shiriki Jyosthna Rai, I stated that in the month of December 2023, her relatives Bhanu Prasad I and\ his wife Keerthi came to her house and informed her that they had influence in the YSRCP Party and could secure a teacher job for her in the Social Welfare Department on an outsourcing basis. Believing their representation, she paid them an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- on various occasions. She transferred Rs.3,32,500/- from her phone number 8886923444 to Bhanu Pr`asadJs phone number 7093868212, and Rs.1,62,500/-from phone number 8309110081 to Bhanu Prasad's phone number 7093868212 thro'ugh PhonePe transactions. Further, . on 15.02.2024, Bhanu Prasad and his wife Keerthi again came to her house, and collected Rs.3,05,000/-in the presence of one elder, Sri M. Pydi Raju. Thereafter, they neither arranged the promised job nor returned the money. Wtlen the complainant demanded repayment, Bhanu Prasad, Keerthi, along with Bhanu Prasad]s mother, aunt, younger brother, elder brother, and sisters-in-law abused her in filthy language, came to her house, and 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8356 of2025 Dated 22.08.2025 threatened her wl-th dire consequences. Hence, she requested that necessary action be taken. 3. Sri D. Ramkoteshwar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner contend that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitI'Oner iS the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The petitI-Oner undertake {o strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 4. Percor]fra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, submittl-ng that the investigation Its Still undervay and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitl'oner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelI'hOOd that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing I-nVeStigatiOn and evading the Process Of law. ln View Of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.2 is that she, along wl'th her husbar+a/Accused No.1, induced the de-facto Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8356 of 2025 Dated 22.08.2025 complainant to part with an amount of inore than rupees twelve lakhs .on the __ev_ --_.-r pretext of providing employment as a teacher in the social Welfare Department on a contract basis. However, there are no bank or phonepe transactions between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant. The Petitioner iS the Wife Of Accused No.1, who has not yet been apprehended by the police. The petitl'oner, who has two minor children aged about 5 years and 3 years, was arrested on o5.08.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 16 days. So far, seven witnesses have been examined. considering the gravity and nature of the allegation levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.2, and her alleged role played in the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The petI'tiOner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subJ-eCt tO he executing a bond for a Sum Of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two suretie's for the like sum each to the sail-sfaction of the learned -Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.2 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. G-_, Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8356 of2025 Dated 22.08.2025 iii. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not le.aye the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused No.2 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. vi. The petitioner/Accused No.2 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. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. SD/-U. SRIDEVl ASSISTANT R //TRUE C.OPY// ::{Z-?i;;9 TRAR To SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal District Judge, Vjsakhapatnam District a{ Visakhapatnam 2. The Superintendent, central prison, visakhapatnam. EZ]Ei The Station House Officer, Arilova Poll'ce Stall-on, Visakhaptnam city Two CCs to the public Prosecutor, High Court of Judl-cature ofAndhra Pradesh at Amaravati. (OUT) HIGH COURT DR.YLRJ DATE: 22|08|2025 ORDER CRLPINo|8356 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION