[ 3369 ] ,.<<h IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Aj THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAyI \,y TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY R :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARjS^^ CRIMINAL PETITION NO; 3510 OF 2025 "'si sl'-'i Between; Karasala Raja Rao, S/o Yelalah, Age 30 years, R/o Thurupupalem, Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Prathipadu Police Station, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent/Complainant / Petition under Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS (Old Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C), praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in connection with Cr.No.8 of 2025 on the file of Prathipadu P.S for the offences under sections 75(2), 78(2), 318(2), 69, 118(1), 351(2) r/w 3(5) ofBNS. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ARUN SHOWRI G, Advocate for the Petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent and the Court made the following: 1 APHC010164122025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3510/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Karasala Raja Rao AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.ARUNSHOWRI G Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), is filed on behalf of the petitioner/A.1, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.8 of 2025 of Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur. 1. A case has been registered against the petitioner/A.1 and others for the offences punishable under Section 118(1), 351(2), 78(2), 69 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’). 2. 3. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that in 2020, while studying intermediate, the defacto Complainant was harassed by the petitioner, who lived nearby, under the guise of love. He later informed her he had secured a job at I Sachivalayam and promised to marry her once settled. He frequently contacted her and took her to movies, restaurants, and Suryalanka Beach. In 2023, while the complainant was in her final year, the Petitioner, now stationed in Marturu, invited her there. Once alone, he allegedly sexually assaulted her against her wish and when she started crying, he promised to marry her. After completing her degree, the defacto complainant met the petitioner again. He attempted to have sex with her in a friend’s room, but she objected. He then suggested she find work in Guntur so they could meet regularly, leading her to join as a receptionist in Firoz Dental clinic. It is also alleged that the Petitioner would visit the clinic and engage in sexual acts with her when no one else was around. When she inquired about marriage, he stated that he had a government job and that his siblings should also settle, thus prolonging the matter. The Petitioner later betrayed the Complainant, claiming his parents rejected the marriage and demanded dowry due to his government job. Using this excuse, he refused to marry her. On that the complainant attempted suicide by ingesting rat poison and was subsequently admitted to government hospital. When her parents confronted the petitioner’s family, they threatened and abused, prompting her to file a police report against the petitioner and his parents. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the foisted upon the petitioner and others due to his refusal to marry the defacto complainant: the petitioner neither cohabitated with nor forcibly raped the defacto complainant; the petitioner filed a bail applications (Crl.M.P.Nos.267 & 358/2025) before the V Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences against Women, Guntur, which were dismissed on 03.03.2025 & 21.03.2025 respectively; the petitioner has been in Central Jail, Visakhapatnam, since 18.02.2025; the investigation has been completed the charge sheet is yet to be filed; the petitioner is the sole bread winner of his family, has a permanent abode, and is willing to furnish solvent sureties. Hence, the learned counsel prays for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner. were 4. case was and 3 The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the State; opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner, asserting that serious allegations are levied against the petitioner; the investigation is incomplete, and if the petitioner is released, he may tamper with evidence and fail to cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, the prosecution prays for the dismissal of the petition. 5. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions, which are on par with the contentions presented in the Petition and the report. 6. In Masroory. State of U.P.\ a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows; 13. ... Though at the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided, but there is a need to indicate in such order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. . 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even according to the prosecution’s case, the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was a long standing consensual physical relationship without any element of deception from its inception, as such, the same cannot be a ground for lodging the FIR for the offences mentioned above. This Court views that not every instance of engaging in sexual relations with a woman under the promise of marriage constitutes rape. It cannot be universally stated that sexual intercourse under such a promise will always amount to rape. Each case must be examined individually, considering the specific facts and the surrounding circumstances of the situation. 8. 9. (2009) 14 see 286 w 1t). According to the allegations outlined in the . report, the defacto complainant became acquainted with the A.1 in 2020; A.1 assured her that he would marry her after securing a job; after obtaining employment, A.1 earned er trust under the pretext of marriage, took her to his room and cohabitated with her and continued their relation by visiting at her work place i e Firoz Dental Clinic; however, he later evaded the marriage, claiming that his parents A.2 and A.3, were unwilling to accept the alliance- on 15.01.2025, the petitioner and complainant had lunch In Guntur, and then A.1 attacked with knife on her wrist and and then the complainant on her gave two packets of rat poison to commit suicide consumed the same by forwarding whatsapp message to the A.1 and then A.1 forwarded that rushed to the complainant and saved message to Josthna, who 'ife by admitting to GGH Guntur- after knowing the incidents, the complainant’s parents approached A.1 and his parents and requested them to perform complainant, however, A.1 and his the marriage of A.1 with the parents refused, using abusive language insulting their modesty, and threatening to kill them. 11. The material on record indicates that years, the petitioner and the de facto over the course of the past five complainant have gradually become acquainted with each other, developing a relationship five years, this relationship has evolved to I over time. Over the past include a physical aspect, indicating a level of intimacy and personal connection .between the two individuals. 12. In Mahesh Damu Khare V. The State of Maharashtra Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: and Ors.^, the stnngent criminal process. There is always a danaer of I =u:;rb:rr^ ^ MANU/SC/1252/2024 5 32. It is evident from the large number of cases decided by this Court dealing with similar matters as discussed above that there is a worrying trend that consensual relationships going on for prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence. i r In Maheshwar Tigga V. The State of Jharkhand^ Supreme Court held that; 13. the Hon’ble 20. We have no hesitation in concluding that the consent of the prosecutrix was but a conscious and deliberated choice, as distinct from an involuntary action or denial and which opportunity was available to her, because of her deep-seated love for the Appellant leading her to willingly permit him liberties with her body, which according to normal human behaviour are permitted only to a person with whom one is deeply in love In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. The State of Maharashtra and Orsj*, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: 14. 20. Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala ifde motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is also a distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the Accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the Accused and not solely on account of the misconception created by Accused, or where an Accused, on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. Such cases must be treated differently. If the complainant had any mala fide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape. The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. ® MANU/SC/0725/2020 “ MANU/SC/1518/2018 6 -tym 15. It is apparent from the record that the filing the report, was 23 years old and was 21 of sexual intercourse occurred. The victim complainant/victim, at the time of years old when the first incident a graduate and presently working at first glance, it cannot As such, she is presumed to consequences of engaging in sexual intercourse with a as receptionist in Feroz Dentai Clinic, and therefore be said that consent was obtained through fraud, be fully aware of the man before marriage. 16. In Pratap Singh V. State of Himachal Pradesh^, Himachal Pradesh held that: the High Court of 6. Apart from that, did the petitiorter ^ ever promise to marry the proseoutnx at the first place is also a question that can only be determined dunng the course of trial, but these are not circumstances W tch can be said to be sufficient enough to curtail the liberty of the petitioner. Bail is the rule and jail the exception. 10. mat would emerge from the conspectus of the aforesaid case law IS that at the pre-conviction stage, there is a presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. Seriousness of allegation or availability of material in support thereof are not the only considerations for declining bail. Another factor which has to be borne in mind is the delay in commencement and conclusion of trial, after all he accused cannot be kept In custody for indefinite period, that too at the pre-conviction stage, if the trial is not likely to be concluded within a reasonable time. It lt ,s more than settled that the object of ball Is to secum the attendance of the accused at the trial, and the pmper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether ball should be granted or refused is w e er rt Is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld also to consider whether there Is any possibility of the accused tampenng with evidence or influencing witnesses etc. Once these tests are satisfied, bail should be granted to an under trial which is also important as viewed from another angle, namely, an accused person who enjoys freedom is In a much better position to look after his and to properly defend himself than if he as a punishment. The Court has case . j. custody. Thus, grant or non-grant of bail depends upon a variety of circumstances and the ® MANU/HP/0646/2016 7 cumulative effect thereof enters into judicial verdict. The Court stresses that any single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal 'validity or as necessarily Justifying the 'grant or refusal of bail. In State of Kerala vs. Raneef^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the Court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. 13. In the present case the Respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in paragraph 2 of his counter affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr. Manette in Charles Dicken's novel 'A Tale of Two Cities', who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille. At this stage, the allegations against the petitioner are subject to the trial's outcome. The trial is anticipated to take a considerable amount of time. Bail serves the purpose of allowing an accused to remain free until his guilt or innocence is determined. It is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper with the prosecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. 18. The petitioner’s continued preventive custody cannot be based on an unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. 19. MANU/SC/0001/2011 r 8 20. The material on record indicates that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.02.2025. and the statement of the victim and most of the material witnesses have already been recorded. The petitioner is shown to be working as a secretary in Sachivalayam, Martur, Prakasam District. Furthermore, the petitioner has a fixed place of residence, making it highly improbable that he would abscond if granted bail. No prior criminal record has been reported against the petitioner. Considering the nature of allegations the length of the detention, this Court views that the detention of the petitioner is required for further investigation. The trial's commencement is uncertain as the investigation is incomplete, and there is no material that granting bail no risk of the petitioner tampering with witnesses or hampering the investigation. However, in light of the nature of allegations, this Court will impose stringent conditions to ensure the petitioner's attendance during the investigation and would hinder justice. Therefore, this Court finds and trial. 21. Given the discussion made hereinabove, without commenting anything the present Criminal Petition on the merits, lest it may prejudice the trial is allowed with the following conditions: (a) The petitioner/accused shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge - - Special Judge for Trail of Offences Against Women, cum Guntur. (b) On release, the petitioner/accused shall Investigating Officer concerned Sunday between 10.00 AM and 01.00 months or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier, (c) The petitioner/accused shall not directly or indirectly contact or any circumstances, and any appear before the once in a week i.e., every PM for three (03) threaten the witnesses under 9 such attempt shall be construed as an attempt to influence the witnesses, shall not tamper with evidence, and shall cooperate with the investigation, (d) The petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions, and breach of any of them will be viewed seriously. The Prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SDI- P.VINOD, KUMAR _ ISTRAR SECTION Of^lCER assistant //TRUE COPY// F . . X To, The V Additional District & Sessions Judge-Cum-Spl.Judge for Trail of Offences Against Women, Guntur 2. The VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur 3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Guntur 4. The Station House Officer, Prathipadu P.S, Guntur District. 5. One CC to SRI. ARUN SHOWRI G Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] 7. One spare copy 1. KJ \ \ HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED:17/04/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.3510 of 2025 allowed • '.r; m 'io 0-. ^ X M 03,7