lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARJ FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8729 OF 2025 of::,`--` Betwee n : Bellani Surendra, S/o. Late Sambasiva Rao, Aged about 43 years, Occ Private, R/o. Flat No. 401, Adidev Residency, 7the Lane, Thotavari Street, Nandamuri Nagar, Vijayawada, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Station House Officer, Mahila UPS, Vijayawada, NTR Commissionerate, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. ...Respondent/Complainan€ 2. Shaik Khairunnissa, W/o Masthan Sharif, Aged about 34 yrs, Occ- Bus'lness, R/o Flat No. 408, Raja Manikyam Enclave Ramraj Nagar, RTC Work Shop Road, Vidyadhrapuram, Vijayawada. ...Respondent/De-facto Complainant petition under section 480 & 483 of BNSS (Old Sections 437 & 439 of cr.p,c), 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 enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on Regular Bail in Cr. No. 66 of 2025 dated 14/07/2025 on the file of Mahila UPS, Vijayawada, NTR Commissionerate. Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Counsel for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following ORDER: Sri P S P Suresh Kumar Ms.P.Akhila Naidu Assistant Public Prosecutor. Sri P.Sravan Kumar APHCO10436812025 lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I PRESENT I THE HO'NOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8729/2025 AND Between I Bellani Surendra, The State ofAndhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: P.S.P Suresh Kumar [3521] ."PETITIONER/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. Public Prosecutor I 2.V.R. Maheswara Rao Paleti i 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 brevI|ty [the BNSS'),'seeking to enlarge the Pe'titioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.66 of 2025 of Mahila Urban Police Station, Vijayawada, NTR Commissionerate, registered for the alleged offence punishable under sections 318(4), 64(1)(m), 76,115(2), I 351(3) reacl with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2O23 (for brevity fthe BNS!). ../ •|. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: '_,i I_£`= Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8729 of 2025 19.09.2O25 2. The case of the'prosecution is that on 14.07.2025 at 22:30 hrs, the complainant reported that in 2020, while attending beautician and tailoring I training at I Town, she became acquainted with Bellani Surendra through I Repudi Jyothi. Surendra promised to arrange Central Government gra'nts and advised her to register {{Bright Step Beautician & Tai-loring Educational Society" on 02.08.2022, appointing her as Pr.esident. Trusting him, she borrowed €10 lakhs and handed it to Surendra, his sister Sai Kumari, and her husband Vasu Deva Rao, but no grants were received. When she qliestioned them, Surendra called her to his house on 12.05.2024, where she was drugged, rendered unconscious, and sexually assaulted. Surendra threatened to release her nude photos unless she paid €5 Iakhs, which she transferred on 15.05.2024. On I 14.01`.2025, he again threatened her and raped her. Under pressure, she I cancelled her childrenJs fixed deposits and transferred €13 Iakhs on o5.02.2025, later pledging gold and giving another €5 lakhs on 12.06.2025. Despite repeated visits, her photos and documents were not returned. On 22.06.2025 at 10:30 P.M., she was assaulted by Venkata Ramana, Babamma, Dinesh, and Neelakantham, who tore her clothes and snatched her phone. \, She then lodged this complaint seeking legal'action. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits i that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alie.ged I offence, without any cogent evidence linking him to the commission' of the .>a L'`9 t` {/,I i> Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8729 of 2025 19.09.2O25 crime. lt is contended that the PetitI-Oner iS the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditI-On that this Court may a impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. 4. lt is further submitted that the petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioner has cooperated wi{hl the investigation thus far and I assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged th.at the I allegations are of a nature that do not warrant -custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while grantI'ng the bail, Petitioner would not violate I't,I and it is urged to allow the petI|tiOn. ±BLGUM_E±!±S..QE±±LHE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTQB± 5. Per contra, Ms.P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still undervay and several material witnesses are to be examined. lt is submitted that enlargement of the petitioner 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 influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the Petitioner abscoonciing and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the progress of the investI-gatiOn, it iS 4 I Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8729 of 2O25 19.09.2025 submitted that the Petitione®r does not deserve the discretionary relief of I bailand it is urged to dismiss the baj[ petition, POINT FOR CON§[DERATION:I 6. 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 Pet-ItiOner iS entitled for grant of bail?" - ANALYSIS: 7. As seen from the record, on 15.09.2025, Sri P.V.R. Maheswara Rao, leamed counsel, intended .to file a memo of appearance for the 2nd I respondent, and the matter was posted to 17.09.2025. On 17.09.2025, as I there was no representation for ,the 2nd respondent, the matter was adjourned to this date as a last chance for hearing respondent No.2. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. 8. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 68 days, having I been arrested on 18.07.2025. According to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, seven witnesses have been examined so far. Material portion of the investigation, insofar as it concerns with the petitioner/accused No.1 has been subst_antially completed. lt is the contention of the learned counsel forthe I petitioner that the de-facto complainant, a woman, had started a business with I the petitioner and lured him.I Indeed, the instant FIR was lodged on 14.07.2025, nearly fourteen months after the alleged offence on 12.05.2024. Even in her statement, the de-facto complainant admits that there was a `ic.-. O ¢' FFffffg3fty L=:it.ul~-* ` -__r-1`---* Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8729 of 2025 19.09.2025 livinge-in rela,tionship between her and the petitioner. Furthermore, the mother «-.r. --` _-_`^.- . .``- of the accused, Venkataramana, had lodged a report agaI-nSt the de-faCtO complainant on 26.06.2025, which was registered as Crime No.250 of 2025 for offences punishable `under sections 329(4), 324(4), and 351 (2) r/w 3(5) of [the BNSJ. This report was filed much prior to the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainaht. , CONCLUSION: I I 9, Considering the facts and circumstances-of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the relationship that existed for some time between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant, and the period of detention the petitioner has already undergone in judicial custody, this Court is inclined to a enlarge the Petitioner on bail, subject to the following stringent conditions. i. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to the executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only), with 'two sureties each f`or the I like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned ll Additional Chief . I Judicial Magistrate Court, Vijayawada. ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the rf Station House Officer, Mahila Urban Police Station, Vijayawada, NTR Commissionerate on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and o5:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the 'learned the Trial Court. 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8729 of2025 19.O9.2025 ill-. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the station House OffI-Cer I concerned. I iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not commitor indulge in commission of any offence in future. I v. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigatI'ng officer as and when required. 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 I from disclosing such facts'to the court or to any police officer. vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. lf he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. SD/-B.PRASAD RAO 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. ASSISTAN //TRUE COPY// s STRAR . TION OFFICER I To, 1. The II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawacla. 2. The Sessions Judge, Manila Court, Vijayawada. 3. The Judge, lI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. 4. The Superintendent, central Prison, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 5. The Station House Offl-cer, Manila Urban Police Station, Vijayawada, NTR Commissionerate. 6. One 7. One 8. One 9. Two A ^ - CC to Sri P S P Suresh Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] CC to Sri P .Sravan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] CC to Sri Paleti V.Fa.Maheswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] CCs to Publl'c Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] -, - `\. }` HIGH COURT Dr.YLR,J DATED:19/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.8729 of 2025 ALLOWED