THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.667 & 718 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER : These Criminal Petitions, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, have been filed by the petitioner/A3 (Crl.P.No.667 of 2025) & petitioner/A4 (Crl.P.No.718 of 2025), seeking regular bail, in Crime No.382 of 2024 of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioners herein and others for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 308(5), 318(4), 131, 127(2), 351(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67-A of the IT Act 2000-2008. 3. Case of the prosecution is that one Adireddi Sarat Teja/defacto complainant has been running a Coffee Shop at Visalakshi Nagar, Visakhapatnam for the last two years in the name of WABI ART CAFÉ. About six months prior to the occurrence of the offence, A1 visited his shop along with her friend Udaya (Navya) and introduced herself as Digital Marketer and then told that they would help him in development of Coffee Shop. On one day, A1 requested the defacto complainant to drive car and on the way, A1 sprayed something on his face and shoulders, for which he questioned and she told that it was a body mist. Thereafter, the defacto complainant felt drowsy and he insisted her to drop him back to his café house. After a few days, A1 invited him to her house situated at NGGO’s Colony for dinner, and she offered some juice, and insisted him to drink it. Thereafter, the defacto complainant felt drowsy and he woke up on the next day morning at her house. On that day evening A1 had showed some 2 imitate photos in her mobile, which he was unaware. On seeing them, he was shocked and questioned about the photos, but she skipped the topic and compelled the defacto complainant to her parties at her friend A2’s guest house situated in Bheemili. Later, A1 started demanding him to marry her and to give divorce to his wife, for which he denied and that A1 was threatening him that if he failed to marry her she would foist false rape case against him. A1 also threatened that her gang members A2 and others, staying in Vizianagaram would see his end. A1 also extorted his phone by showing the weapon by putting him under fear of death and got all his personal information and shared his live location on her mobile to track him continually. Later, on one day, A1 locked the defacto complainant in the washroom at her house and threatened him that she would call his family members and create a situation. After the defacto complainant locked house on 24.05.2024 A1 forced him to board her car to go to function near Simhachalam. Further A1 always compelled the defacto complainant to get into her drugs business with her partner Zoya, who is resident of Hyderabad for which he denied. Later, without his consent, she booked tickets to Hyderabad to meet their partners, but he denied. Thereafter A1 demanded him to give divorce to his wife and also to bring his mother’s jewellary and cash and further she locked him in room for two days and she went to Vijayawada. After her arrival from Vijayawada, again A1 threatened the defacto complainant to bring gold and cash and she also invited her friends to hostage him and demand money from his parents. As the defacto complainant denied A1 broke a glass a bottle and attacked him to kill, and while she was in phone conversation with boy, the defacto complainant ran away from her home on 29.07.2024. 3 4. Heard. Perused the record. 5. On perusal of the material on record goes to show that serious nature of accusations are leveled against the petitioners/accused. This is a case of attempt to commit murder, extortion, cheating, assault or criminal force, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation coupled with conspiracy and publish or transmitting sexually with explicit material in the electronic form. The material shows that there is a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 109, 308(5), 318(4), 131, 127(2), 351(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67-A of the IT Act 2000-2008. The petitioners/A3 & A4 have been sent to judicial custody on 24.12.2024. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Investigation is in progress and some more witnesses are to be examined. The petitioner is involved in running drugs racket in Hyderabad and forced the defacto complainant to invest in their drugs business. The technical analysis report from FSL and some more MOs are yet to be obtained. Some more audio call conversations of A1 and petitioners/A3 and A4 are yet to be analyzed. 6. Since the investigation is pending, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition Nos.667 and 718 of 2025 are dismissed. _____________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J Dated:05.02.2025 S D P 4 134 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.667 & 718 OF 2025 Dated: 05.02.2025 S D P