IN THE H[GH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE .'PRESENT: i€ THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA R# Between.I CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8780 OF 2025 'rify Dhanalakota Ramprasad, s/o Appata Raju, aged 25 years, E=_._I__ __ ,__.V, , IIVC]LC Employee ResI'djng at D.No,8-18, Sivagopalapuram, Tangellamudi, EIuru, Eluru District .I.. PetitI-Oner/Sole Accused AND 1. The state ofAndhra pradesh,I F&ep. through its public prosecutor, High Court of AP at Amaravati. 2. Dhanalakota pravalljka, W/o Dhanalakota Hema venkata sai Kumar, c/o. Meka Nageswara Rao, aged about 26 years, resl-dI-ng at D.No.16- B-14-176, Sivagopalapuram, Tangellamudi, BehI-nd SjValayam 3rd lane EIuru Mandal, Behind sivalayam 3rd lane, EIuru MandaI, West Godavari DjstrI-Ct-534005. . . . Respondent No.2/Defacto complal-nant Respondent No.2 is llmPleaded as per the courtls order dated o8109.2025 in I[A.No.1 of 2025 in CrI.PINo.8780 of 2025. Respondent/complaI-nan£ petitI'On under Section 482 of cr.p.c is filed prayl-ng that I'n the clrcumstances stated ln the affldavlt filed I'n Support Of the Crlmlnal petltIOn¢, the High court may be pleased {o grant antjcl-patory ba" in the event of petI'tlOner/Accused belng arrested ln COnnectIOn Wlth F I R No 145 of 2025, dt. o2.07.2025 on the file of Eluru II Town police StatI'On, EIurul ORDER . |`, '}#,-.*S Private APHCO10440372025 EiTEE lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (special original Jurisdiction) I TUESDAY, TIHE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO'THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE i PRESENT / THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8780/2025 Between : Dhanalakota Ramprasad [3521] ".PETITIONER/ACCUSED a AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and u.RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Others Counsel for the-Petitioner/accused : c.v.R Rudra Prasad Counsel for the Respon.dent/comp[ainant(S): i 1. Uday Kumar Vampugadavala 2. Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya `,I Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity fthe BNSSJ) by the petitioner/Accusecl for grant of pre-arrest bail in COnneCtiOn With Crime No.145 of -2024 of E!uru II Town Policel Station, E!uru District, registerec! for the alleged, offences punishable under Sections 64(1 ), 74, 351 (2) of the Bharatiya i Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity £the BNS'). I I -. ¢` `' ga. Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8780 of 2025 Dated 16.09.2025 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on o2.07.2025 at 2.:30 P.M., the complainant reported prolonged sexual harassment by her brother-in-law. I While her husband, a car driver, was frequently away, the brother-in-law a misbehaved with her first in May 2021 by forcibly holding and hugging her, and again on her son's birthday in september 2021, prompting her to leav6 for her grandmotherJs house. He later secretly installed bathroom cameras, recorded her bathing, threatened her with the videos, and attempted rape by tearing her clothes, pressing and biting her breasts, and trying to remove her lower I garments, while threatening to kill her family if she spoke out. she stated that these acts caused severe physical, sexual, and mental traum,a, ruined her marital life, and sought strict legal action. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.I I 3. Sri C.V.R. Rudra PFaSad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits'that the Petitioner has been falsely'implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this court . may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail.-The Petitioner has got fixed abode. 4. lt I-S further Submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner ancl custodial interrogation is not warrantecl in the facts and I circumstances of the ease. .The Petitioner has cooperatec! with the .^t-.i I r7 S 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.878O of 2025 Dated 16.09.2025 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 Petitioner/Accused lin the interest of justice. I ARGuMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: I 5. Per contra, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, 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 Petl'tioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. lt I'S Sl[bmitted that if the Petitioner is gr?nted p`re-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 6. The prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby Obstructing the fair and impartial I investigation. [n view of the seriousness of the allegations and the po±entia[ i risk to the progress of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be-dismissed. 7. Sri Uday Kumar Vampugadavala, learned counsel for respondent No.2, while reiteratin.g the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously contended that the petitioner, has harassed the respondent No.2 •1 in different ways attracting the provisions of Sections 64(1), 74 and 351(2) of fthe BNSJ. Therefore, the petitione!r is not entitled for the discretionary relief of granting pre-arrest bail and it is urged to dismiss the petition. I 8. 'Thoug+htful consideration is bestowed om the arguments acivanced by i the learned Counsel for both sicles. I have perused the entire recorcl. ` -\3 `..``r.---`-`, Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.878O of 2025 Dated 16.O9.2025 POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 9. ln the light of the case of the prosecution and the con-tentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: ££Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?" . ANALYSIS: I 10. I As seen from the record, the petitioner/accused is none other than the I own brother-in-law of respoandent No.2. Respondent No.2 had a love marriage with one Danalakota Hema Venkata Sai Kumar in the year 2018 at Simhachalam Temple. After certain disputes, respondent No.2 and Danalakota Hema Venkata Sai Kumar, who is the elder brother of the petitioner herein, parted their ways. Respondent No.2 lodged a report against her husband, who is brother of the petitioner, with the Mahila Police on 13`.05.2025, which was registered as a case in Crime No.56 of 2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 85.read with 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 I of {h6 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity, "the Act"). In that report, i respondent No.2 made allegations against her in-laws and her husband. ln the same complaint, she also stated that her in-laws and other relatives harassed her by alleging that she had developed an illicit relationship with her brother-in- ¢ law, the petitioner herein. The de facto complainant, however, categorically asserted in FIR No.56 of 2025 that she had not maintained any kind of relationship with her brother-in-law. Surprisingly ancl ironically, on 02.07.2025, respondent No.2 Iociged another report with the-police, which was registerec! as Crime No.145 of 2025 for the allegecl offences unc!er Sections 64(1), 74, I \. I e`_-> 5 Dr_YLR, J CrI.P.No.8780 of 2025 Dated 16.O9.2025 and 351(2) of the BNS. ln this report, she alleged that her brother-in-law/the petitioner herein had misbehaved with her inl various ways and threatened to I upload videos of her bathing if she did not comply With h-lS demandSo. She I further alleged that her brother-in-law/the petitioner outraged her modesty. According to her, all these incidents occurred in the year 2022. Notably, in her earlier report registered as Crime No.56 of 2025 just two months prior to the instant complaint, there was no iota of mention of these Serious allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner belongs to the SC (Mala) community, while her husband belongs to BC-B, The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been employed with a software company in Hydera'bad. He has got his family. The pe{itic;ner is aged about 25 years. The i respondent No.2 'ls, aged about 26 years. ll. Considering the different-stands taken by the Petitioner in the two crimes, the gravity and nature of {he' allegations leveled the petitioner/Accused, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail tO the Petitioner/Accused. CONCLUSION: 12. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is a[[owed with the following conditions: i. In the event of her arrest, the Pet'itioner/Accusec] shall be I enlargecl on,bail subject to the executing a bOnC! for a Sum Of . Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only), with two sureties for c--+ -.=* E.Le#- 6 `Dr'YLR,` Crl.P.No.8780 of 2025 I Dated 16_09.2025 the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioner/Accused shall make himself availa'ble for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioner/Accused shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecutI'On Witnesses; i iv. -The Petitioner/Accused shall appear before the station House I Officer concerned once ,in a week i.e., on every saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. V. Vl. To, The Petitioner/Accused shall not leave the states of Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. The Petitioner/Accused shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. lf he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that e'ffect to the Investigating I Officer. Sd/-K.TATA RAG //TRUE COPY// D EgrFGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1. The V Addl. Dl-strict & sessions Judge-Gum-SpI. Court for Trial offence against women, west Godavari-EIuru. 2. The SHO, E!uru ll Town police Station, Eluru District. I.{ 3. Dhanalakota Pravallika, w/o Dhanalakota Hema Venkata sai Kumar, c/o. Meka Nageswara Rao, aged about 26 years, residing at D.No.16-B-14-176, Sivagopalapuram, Tangellamudi, Behind sivalayam 3rd lane EIuru Mandal, Behind sivalayam 3rd lane, Eruru Mandal, west Godavari District-534005. (by RPAD) '_---.\` /// '< ksr ( ( EE /,i 4. One CC to SRl. C V R RUDRA PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two cos to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh.[OUT] 6. One spare copy I..` { /I 1-,.-_. HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED : 16/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.8780 of 2025 ALLOWED < ..,