IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3305 OF 2025 Between: Shaik Gall Saida @ Piddu, S/o Moula, Aged 27 years, R/o Paritala Village, KanchikaeherlaMandal, NTR District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Kanchikaeherla Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 480 and 483 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.43/2025 dated 09-02-2025, on the file of the Kanchikaeherla P.S., NTR Commissionerate. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Veladi Sai Sri. Harsha, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent The Court made the following: Page 11 APHC010156282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3305/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER/A.1 Shark Gali Saida @ Piddu AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.VELADI SAI SRI HARSHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: The Criminal Petition filed, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail, by petitioner/A.1 in Cr.No.43/2025 of Kanchikacherla Police Station, NTR Commissionerate, registered for the offence under sections 318(2), 318(4), 64(1), 70(1), 127(2), 351(2), 87 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’). 1. The prosecution's case involves A1, a resident of Paritala village, and the victim, a second-year B.Tech student from Tiruvuru, studying at Amrutha Sai Engineering College, near Paritala. A3, a classmate of the victim, is also implicated. A2, who met the victim during her commute to college and hostel. 2. Page I 2 developed a friendship with her, took her to various places, and photographed her. A2 allegedly introduced A1 to the victim. On 12.01.2025 at 11:00 am, A2 invited the victim to lunch, claiming there was a function at his house. Trusting him, the victim left the hostel with A2. Once at A2's house, A1 and A3 were present. A2 left the scene under the pretext of a task, and during his absence, A1 locked the room, threatened the victim, and claimed to possess compromising photos of her with A2. He threatened to morph and shares these images on social media. Afterward, A1 forcibly raped the victim against her will. As the victim screamed for help, A2 and A3 increased the TV volume to ensure that the neighbors couldn't hear her cries. The victim reportedly asked A1, A2, and A3 to delete the photos from their phones. However, they threatened her with dire consequences. Since then, A1 allegedly sent messages to the victim via WhatsApp, demanding she meet him, or he would post the naked photos on social media. Unable to endure the continuous threats and harassment, the victim, along with her parents, filed a report with the police against the accused. Thus, A1 to A3 conspired to deceitfully lure the victim to the A.2’s house, where they assisted A1 in committing rape against her and afterward, they threatened the victim, warning that they would post her naked photos and a video of the incident on social media. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint was lodged with mala fide intention, solely to falsely implicate the petitioner, who not present at the scene of the alleged incident. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.02.2025. According to the complainant, the incident took place on 12.01.2025 at around 11:00 a.m.; however, the complaint was filed only on 09.02.2025, resulting in an unexplained delay of 28 days. A previous regular bail application (CrI.M.P.No.226/2025) was dismissed on 20.03.2025. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigating agency to facilitate the prompt completion of the investigation. The learned counsel, therefore, prays that bail be granted to the petitioner. 3. was Page 13 On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, contending that the petitioner has been accused of a heinous offence, it is submitted that the victim has made grave allegations 4. against the petitioner, specifically asserting that he was the main perpetrator which forcibly raped her. The delay in lodging the complaint, it is argued, was due to the victim being blackmailed by the accused, who threatened to publicy share her photos, thereby causing irreparable harm to her reputation. He submits that the investigation is still ongoing with respect to the and the collection of medical certificates further examination of some more witnesses for both the accused and the victim. learned counsel for the I have heard Sri Veladi Sai Sri Harsha petitioner/A.1 and Sri G. Neeiothpal, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent / State. Learned counsel on either side reiterated their with the contentions presented in the petition 5. the submissions, which are on par and the report. In Masroor V. State of U.P.\ a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows; 6. 13 Though at the stage of granting bail, an elaborate of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case which may creluZ Z accused, should be avoided but there is a need ot indicate in Zh order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being grante pauTdTy Where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. prosecution, sexual consensual and the victim was in a relationship According to the prosecution contends that even as per The petitioner intercourse with the victim was with the petitioner for the past year 7. on 12.01.2025 at 11.00 AM, A.2, who was in a relationship with the victim, invited family function; trusting him, she she found no one there her to lunch under the pretext of attending a hostel with A.2; upon reaching A.2’s house left her except A.1 and A.3, who were already present ; A.2 then left, citing some work (2009) 14 see 286 Page 14 and threatened the victim, and during his absence, A.1 locked the room claiming to possess photos of her with A.2, and threatened to morph and social media; under this threat, A.1 forcibly raped the victim she screamed for help, A.2 and A.3 increased the TV requested A.1, A.2, and A.3 to delete with dire consequences. Subsequently, share them on against her will and as to muffle her cries. The victim volume the photos, but they threatened her allegedly sent messages to the victim post her naked photos on social media. im through WhatsApp, demanding a A.1 meeting, or threatening to officer seized the cell of mediators. As reflected in the record, the investigating accused during the arrest, in the presence additional witnesses need to be 8. phones from the Regarding examined and the medical certificates the investigation, it is ongoing, as of both the accused and the victim are still awaited. defacto complainant / Victim and A.3 were inq College, Paritala; A.2, 9. It is important to note that the second- year B.Tech students at Amrita Sai Engineering Deeksha Degree College, student of a third-year undergraduate I complainant/victim through relationship; the petitioner (A.1) assisted A.1 to forcibly raped the acquainted with the Kanchikacherla, became and they subsequently developed a Instagram is a friend of A.2, who is alleged to have victim. 10 AS already noted, the offences under sections 318(2), 318W, 64(U 70(1) 127(2), 351 (2), 87 r/w 3(5) of BNS registered against the petitione is punishable by rigorous imprisonment for at least fine. Gang rape carries others. The offence of rape extendable to life imprisonment with a rigorous imprisonment, extendable to life imprisonment with a committed by the petitioner is grave in ten years twenty years’ fine. The offence alleged to have been cannot be considered as a mere■ physical assault. In an the victim cannot be expected, acting against the nature. In fact, rape occurrence of this type, the resistance from there is no allegation that the victim was inimical or was Page I 5 instigation of somebody else. Therefore, the cases relating to granting of bail in offences of rape are required to be approached differently, as granting of bail in such cases by adopting a liberal approach would be against the interest of the society. 11. It is not necessary now to go into detail about the correctness otherwise of the allegations made against the accused as this is a subject matter to be dealt with by the trial judge. The period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the petitioner/A. 1 to be enlarged on bail. or 12. In view of above, considering cumulative effect of entire facts and circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of the evidence and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and other factors, like grievance of the offences including the severity of the punishment, manner in which it has been committed and its impact on the society petitioner/A. 1 is not entitled for bail, at this stage. 13. For all the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 14. It is explicitly clarified that the observations made in this Order are preliminary and pertain solely to the decision on the present application without indicating a stance on the case's merits. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama, Krishna District 2. The Station Flouse Officer, Kanchikacherla Police Station, NTR Commissionerate. 3. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Nandigama, Krishna District 4. One CC to Sri Veladi Sai Sri Harsha, Advocate fOPUCl 5. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies MV PRK ■ • N. '' j HIGH COURT DATED: 05/05/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3305 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION