``` lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATIl/r MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER:`.f,-+<'z TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE `l`-3 :PRESENT: ` -~ HONOURABLE DRLjUsTICE Y-LAKSHMANA RAO \givr> CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8886 OF 2025 i,ruy. Between : he,..i,-' 1. Fatima Usman Chaudary @ Zoya, W/o Usman Chaudary, aged 36 EE=_ years, R/o Flat No.6O4, MSA DE Royal Apartment, SA Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad, Telangana. ~ 2. Mohammad Tanvee\r~~Ahmed, , s/o. Mohammed MunneiL`Ahmed, aged |, 39 years R/o Flat No.604, MSA DE Royal Apartment, SA Colony; Tolichowki, Hyderabad, Telangana. \-a ...Petitioners/Accused No.4 & 5 \gr AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ffi6h court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravati. ...Respondent \.,. petition under section 480 & 4;-3-of BNSS (old Sections 457 & 43r9 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 release the Petitioners who was arrayed as Accused No. 4 and 5 bail in connection with crime No. 3\5-§ of 2024 dated 15.10.2024 on the file of Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissjonerate, Visakhapatnam District for offences leveled against the petitioners under section 120b, 420,386,307,347,328,352,506 r/w 34 lPC,67 lTA-2000-2008, i, Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Sudhakara Rao Ambati`,~~~~ Counsel for the Respondent : Ms.P.Akhila Naiclu I., Assistant Public Prosecutor. The eoTrt made the following ORDER: APHCO10446682025 EHEHT ORDE lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special orjgjnaI Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT I THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIM]NAL PETITIONNO: [3521] Between: Fatima usman chaudary @ zoya and others .mpETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State of Andhra pradesh u.RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the petitioner/accused(s).I Sudhakara Rao Ambatl- Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: Public prosecutor The Court made the following: The CrI'minal Petjtjon has been filed under sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatl'ya Nagarjk suraksha sanh]'ta, 2023 (for brevity tthe BNSSJ), seek[-ng to enlarge the pet]'tioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 on bail I'n Cr.No.359 of 2024 of A]'rporf police. stat]-on, visakhapatnam commj'ssjonerate, vI'Sakhapa{nam District, registered for the alleged offence punjshab!e under sections 120-B, 420, 386, 307, 347, 328, 352, 506 read with 34 of the !ndjan penal Code, 1860 (for brevity {the I.p.c') and sectI-On 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for brevity lthe Act])a ---` i I ¢-.-r€J`-r--, +-- ke-- Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8886 of2025 Dated 15.09.2025 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.10.2024, the c-omplainant, a project game developer at RR Software, was introduced to Korapalu Joy Jamima by the company owner, Ratan Raju. Jamima allegedly developed a relationship with him, sec!-etly recorded intimate visuals, and later blackmailed hI-m for money, threatening tO Share the content With his family and friends. Over time, she and her uncle, Venu Reddy @ Chinna, allegedly extorted large sums, forced him to purchase valuables, and confined and assaulted him. On 27.04.2023, Jamima and Venu Reddy allegedly intercepted him near Gopalapatnam, robbed him of cash, jewellery, electronics, and important documents, and attempted to attack him with a knife. Out of fear for his life and reputation, the complainan{ initially refrained from reporting the incidents. Later! he learned that Jamima had filed a missing complaint and a sexual harassment case against him. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOFR THE PETITIONERS: 3. Sri Amba{i Sudhakara Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking them to the commission of the crime. It is contended tha't the Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their family and their arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to their dependents. The Petitioners undertake to abide by any condition that this Court. may impose while granting bail to the Petitioners. / ±---\ .a3- =h E_`+. riff,BEEfiE.+ ;ffiinEB Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8886 of2025 Dated 15.09.2025 4. lt is further submitted that the Petitioners have a permanent place of residence -and there I'S` nO likelihood of them absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitl'oners have cooperated with the investigation so far and assures con{in.ued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS.OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Ms,P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioners on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the Petitioners. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioners, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing `the course of justi.ce. It is also urged that there exists a real anc€ imminent risk of the petitioners, absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the progress of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioners do not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: I I -ut..-. Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8886 of2025 Dated 15.09.2025. 6. ln the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for considerat'ion is: "Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?" ANALYSIS 7. As seen from the record, a preliminary charge sheet.has been filed. The petitioners were arrested on o3.07.2025 and naves been in judicial custody for the past 70 days. So far, nine witnesses have been examined. A learned single Judge of this court, in crl.p.No.4397 of 2025 dated 01.07.2025, enlarged petitioner No.3 herein on bail I-n Crime No.382 of 2024 of Kancharapalam police station, registered on similar facts and.circumstances. Likewise, a learned Sl'ngle Judge of this court, I'n CrI.P.No.4398 of 2025 on 27,06.2025 enlarged the petitioner No.2 in CrI-minal No.382 of 2024 on similar a[[egatjons. -.- ___._____ CONC LUSION 8. ConsI'dering the nature and gravity of aIIegatlron levelled against the Petitioners, their alleged roles played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the petitioners, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The PetitI'OnerS/Accused No.4 and 5 shall be enlarged on bail subject to tinem executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- E=ii= (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), with two separate sureties each IJ_ 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8886 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2O25 for the like sum each 1:o the satisfaction of the learned Vll Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. ii. The Petitioners/Accused No.4 and 5 shall appear before ` the Station House Officer, Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, Visakhapatnam District, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the [earned`t-he Trial Court. iii. The Petitioners/Accused No.4 and 5 shall not leave the II'mitS of the Djstrjct without prior permission from the 'Station House Officer concerned. iv. The Petitioners/Accused No.4 and 5 shall not commit or I-ndu]ge in co-mmission of any offence in future. v. The Petitioners/Accused No.4 and 5 shall cooperate with the investigatI'ng Officer in further investigation Of the Case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The Petitioners/Accused No.4 and 5 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. vii. The P'etitioners/Accused No.4 and 5 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. lf they cjajm that c=--I _, \ Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8886 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 they do not have passports, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating officer. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. sD/-M.PRABHAKARA RAO //TRUE COPY// I To , -,- -\,-.+' 1. The Vll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vis?khapatnam, Visakhapatnam Distr'ICt. 3. The Station House Officer, Airport Police Sta\tfon, Visakhapatnam +c-- District. 4. One CC to SRl. SUDHAKARA RA6 AMBATI Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. One spare copy i-rfr CVSS i_-\ . HIGH COURT Dr.YLR,J DATED: 15/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLPINo.8886 of 2025 ALLOWED • -_-_-gr I ` -,-.`-. --