ir APHC010450632025 WM IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8979 OF 2025 Between: Sri Gollavilli S Ramakrishna, S/o.G.Satyanarayana, aged about 40 years, R/o.4-103, Permanent resident of Vasamsetti Street, Kakinada Rural, Indrapalem, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh -533006. ...PETITIONER/PROPOSED ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. Through the Station House Officer, Peddapuram Police Station, Kakinada. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the Crime No.292 of 2025, on the file of the Peddapuram Police Station, Kakinada District, in the event of his arrest by the police. r : SRI HEMANTH KUMAR VENNA Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondent: MS.AKHILA NAIDU, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR r The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010450632025 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: 8979/2025 Between: 1.SRI GOLLAVILLI S RAMAKRISHNA, S/0 G.SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/0 4-103, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VASAMSETTISTREET KAKINADA RURAL, LNDRAPALEM,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -533006. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its , Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi Through the Station House Officer Peddapuram Police station, Kakinada. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. HEMANTH KUMAR VENNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR This Court made the following 2 ORDER: been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya seeking for granting of pre-arrest bail to the This criminal petition has Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, petitioner-proposed accused in crirrre No. 292 of 2025 of Peddapuram Police registered for the offences punishable under Station, Kakinada District, Sections 308 (7), 143 (1), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 (1), 4 (1), 5 (1) (a) and 6 (1) 137 (1) (b) and 351 (2) read with Section 49 of the (a) of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. r nF THF PROSECUTION: About four years prior to ' 07-04-2025, at the house of accused No. 1 2. Dharga Centre, Peddapuram, accused No. 1 her house as servant maid on a month, accused No. 1 money and induced situated near Pedda Maseedu at allowed de facto complainant to work in monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. After passing of one forced de facto complainant to do prostitution and earn Rs.50,000/- per month from her earnings. When de facto that she would give complainant refused to do so, accused No. 1 took her signatures on blank her child and compelled her for doing prostitution cheques and also kidnapped her with the active support of accused Nos. 2 to 4. with DF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITION^ sn V.Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the alleged of the crime. It CONTENTIONS 3. innocent and has been falsely implicated in the petitioner is offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission sole breadwinner of his family and his is contended that the petitioner is the arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the 3 petitioner. The petitioner undertakes may impose while granting pre-arrest bail to the 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits about the name of the petitioner in the FIR. petitioner has permanent place of residence absconding or evading the are of a nature that do not warrant custodial i is imposed while granting the bail, the urged to allow the petition. to abide by any condition that this petitioner. Court that there was no reference It is further submitted that the and there is no likelihood of him process of law. It is also urged that the allegations — interrogation, and if any condition petitioner would not violate it; and it is arguments of THF .^TATP. 5. Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, strenuously opposed the investigation is still underway and examined. It is submitted that enlargement stage would seriously hamper the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, grant of pre-arrest bail. contending that the several material witnesses are to be of the petitioner on bail at this progress of the investigation and may result .n non-cooperation from the petitioner. The prosecution further that the petitioner, if released, obstructing the course of justice. apprehends may influence or intimidate witnesses It is also urged that there thereby exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioner absconding and evading the due Given the gravity of the allegations the investigation, it is submitted that the discretionary relief of bailand process of law. and the potential threat to the progress of petitioner does not deserve the it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 4 tv 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail? ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the petitioner is that he assisted accused No. 1 i running a brothel house by retrieving the victim girl. L.W.1-the victim girl gave a statement to that effect. The petitioner is husband of accused No. 1 who is the mam accused in the case. There are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner. in 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner inasmuch as it would amount to giving a license for the person against whom serious allegations are levelled and it would also amount to giving a shield or protection to the person against whom accusation is well established as per the judgments of the Hon ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab^ and Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State of Delhi^. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. There are no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. (1980)2 see 565 ^ (2020) 5 see 1 5 CONCLUSION: 10. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. SDI- SK.MOHAMMED RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Peddapuram Police Station, Kakinada District. 2. One CC to Sri Hemanth Kumar Venna, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP at Amaravati [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies BSV TAG ‘ HIGH COURT DATED:12/09/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 8979 OF 2025 I n SEP 2n?5 mj . Curreni Section . DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION