IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARA + WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: ng THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO ?ra!!1`'¥I!rdgiv CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2181 OF 2025 Betwee n : Mohd. Aslam basha @ chandu, s/o. suleman Rahaman, Aged about 30 years, R/o.14-10-2/1 pension line, Back Side 6fARDGK School, Eluru Now at Dadapalav Centre Rehamanat Street, Eluru, Andhra Pradesh. . . , Petitioner/Accuseci AND 1. The State of Andhra Pfadesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravatl' Through the Sub-inspector of Police EIuru ll Town Police Station, EIuru, Eluru District 2. Akasapu Padmavathi, S/o. Late Srinu, Aged about 37 years, R/o. Ashok Nagar, Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh. ..IRespondent/ 2nd Respondent' (Respondent No.2 is impleaded as per the court order dated 08,04-2025 in I-A.No.1 of2025 in CrI.P.No.2181 of2025) E Petition under sections 480 & 483 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of thei Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the`' Petitioner/Accused on bail I'n Crime No. 24 of 2025 on the file of EIuru ll Town P.S., EIuru, Eluru District in the interest of justice. The Petl'tI'On coming On for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI D TARAK PRASAD Advocate for the Petl-tioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the~Respondent No.1 ; APHCOl d104202025 Elm lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2181/2025 Between : Mohd. Aslam Basha @ Chandu [3521] ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and m.RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. D TARAKA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of "Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023" (for brevity lthe BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.24 of 2025 of Eluru II Town Police Station, registered under Sections 69, 318 (4) and 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity lthe BNS'). |=_=-.-I .-,-` \-----J " tf, 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2181 of 2O25 Dated 09.04.2025 J/ 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme cour+ -ln Jagjeet Singh and others v. Ashish Mishra1, aged about 37 years, a widow, whose husband passed away 20 years ago, got acquaintance with the petitioner and they maintained living relation for a quite long time; the petitioner/accused lured the de-facto complainant to marry and had sexual intercourse with. her; in the year 2021, the petitioner took an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-from her for tender business with a promise to repay it; whenever the de-facto complainant insists the petitioner to marry her, he postponed on one pretext or other; later the petitioner threatened with her dire consequences; the de-facto complainant lodged a report with the police on 31.01.2025. 3. Sri D. Tarak Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the age of the petitioner is 30 years, the age of the de-facto complainant is 37 years; the de-facto complainant is a widow; there are financial disputes in between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant; the petitioner and the de-facto complainant indulged in living relation; the petitioner has not committed any offence; he is sole breadwinner of his family; he suffered an accident and he was operated 1 (2002) 4 SCR 536 &=-=,I t~`4 3 Dr. YLR, J crl.p.No.2181 of 2025 Dated O9.04.2025 I/ for multiple fractures on h-ls forearm; he would abide by any conditions imposed by this court; and urged to enlarge the p'etitioner on bail. 4. Per cot,fra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public prosecutor, vehemently opposed the bail application saying that a Pr,'ma fac,'e case was established against the petitioner; FSL report is awaited; bank statements relating to the crime have to be secured; Only 8 witnesses have been examined and the owner of the house, in which the petitioner and the de-facto complainant lived together is to be examined and urged to dismiss the bail application, as the investigation is not yet completed, 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed On the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the petitioner and the de-faCtO complainant maintained living relation for a quite long time. The petitioner made false prom'lse of marrying the de-facto complainant, who is a widow and 7 years elder than the petitioner. It is the version Of the de-facto complainant that the petitioner and she were in living relation and the petitioner had taken an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-from the de-facto complainant under the pretext of doing some business and \`- I. `_9 I ,.-i `- L| 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2181 of 20`25 Dated 09.04.2025 ~/ assured to repay that amount, but the petitioner has not repaid that amount, which made the de-facto complainant to lodge a report with the police. The major offence with which the petitioner is alleged to have been committed, l's under section 69 of lthe BNS.,I for which the maximum punishment is upto 10 years and rest of the offenceS are punishable upto 7 years and below. The petitioner was arrested On 20.02.2025. The petitioner has been languishing in the judicial remand for the past 48 days. ln obtaining FSL report, the petitioner had nO role to play or I-ntermeddle With the opinion in FSL report. Sufficient number of independent witnesses have been examined. Of course, owner of the house was not yet examined:`If the stringent conditions are imposed On =. the petitioner, while enlarging him on bail, investigation may not be hampered at the hands of the petitioner. Indeed, the investigating officer should have examined house owner within a reasonable time after registration of the FIR and examination of the de-facto complainant. 7. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the allegatl'ons levelled against the petl'tioner, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. In the result, the crimjna[ petition is allowed with the following conditions: ~- ~_LS c=< --, Dr. YLR, J crl.p.No.2181 of 2025 Dated 09.04.2025 i. The petitioner Shall be enlarged On bail Subject tO he execut-lng a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned " Add-ItiOnal Judicial F-lrst class Magistrate, Eluru. .Ii. The petitioner Shall not directly Or indirectly influence or threaten or meet the witnesses including the de-facto complainant. iii. The petitioner Shall cooperate W'lth the inVeStigat'lng off-leer 'ln further investigation of the case and shall be ava'llable to the investigating officer as and when called by him. iv. The petitioner Shall appear before the investigating officer on every saturday in between 10'.00 am and o5:00 pm t'lll Charge Sheet iS filed. The Petitioner Shall not leave the limits of the Distr'lct Without Prior Permission Of the I nvest'lgating Off'lcer. SD/- M.SRJNfVAS A SsS:sffi§i:llcSETRRA R For. //TRUE COPY// I I.,i £dFFS- a ; ll I ll To, PSR 1. The " Additional JudicI'aI FI-rSt Class Magistrate, Eluru, West Godavari District 2. The Superintendent, Dl'st+ict Jail, EIuru, Eluru District 3. The Station House Officer, Eluru " Town Police Station, Eluru, EIuru DistrI'Ct 4. The Sub-Inspector of police, EIuru ll Town Poll'ce Station, Eluru, Eluru DistrI'Ct 5. Akasapu padmavathi, s/o. Late Srjnu, Aged about 37 years, R/o. Ashok Nagar, Eluru, EIuru DjstrI|Ct, Andhra Pradesh. (by RPAD) 6. One CC to SRl. D TARAK PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh' [OUT] 8. One spare copy I.._-- HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED :09/04/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.2181 of 2025 ALLOWED