APHC010252432026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3994/2026 Between: 1. B RENUKA, , W/O. BOODSU SREEKANTH,AGED 35 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 10-113A,CHARALAVANDLAPALLI, H/O. CHINTAPARTHI VILLAGE AND POST,VAYALPADU MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. VICTIM, (CRIME NO.62 OF 2026 OF PILER URBAN POLICE STATION, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT) RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 07.08.2026 IN CRL.P.NO.3994 OF 2026. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. PAMPANA PADMAKAR 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.62 of 2026 of Piler Urban Police Station, Annamayya District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 351(1),69,316(1),78(2),352 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de‑facto complainant, after migrating to Hyderabad with her husband, came into contact with Accused No.1 and the Petitioner. It is alleged that both accused created disputes between the de-factocomplainant and her husband, induced her to stay separately at Pileru, and deceitfully obtained her gold ornaments and cash. Thereafter, the Petitioner allegedly left her alone with Accused No.1, who is said to have raped, confined, assaulted, and abused her. Accused No.1 further captured her nude images during video calls and threatened to share them with her family. Unable to bear the harassment, the complainant lodged a report on 04.03.2026, leading to registration of the present crime. 3. Mr.D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is contended that the Petitioner herself is a victim at the hands of Accused No.1 and the complainant, who developed a sexual relationship and later eloped. It is 3 further submitted that the complainant is misusing criminal proceedings to extract money, and undertakes to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 4. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposes the petition, submitting that the allegations are supported by prima facie material collected during investigation. It is argued that the Petitioner actively participated in the offence, and her plea of victimhood is untenable. The prosecution emphasizes that the investigation is at a crucial stage and releasing the Petitioner would prejudice the process, with a real risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5. Mr.Pampana Padmakar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 also opposes the petition, contends that the allegations are supported by material on record. He submits that the Petitioner’s involvement is evident, and the plea of misuse of proceedings is speculative. It is further argued that custodial interrogation is necessary, and the gravity of the allegations outweighs considerations of bail and it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 4 8. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 9. On careful examination of the record, the allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 include defrauding the de-facto complainant and taking away gold ornaments of 10 kasulu and cash of Rs.1,00,000/‑. Specific overt acts are attributed against both the Petitioner and Accused No.1. The accusations are supported by prima facie material. 10. The offences alleged are grave in nature, involving deceit, sexual exploitation, and criminal intimidation. The investigation is at a crucial stage, and custodial interrogation of the Petitioner appears necessary to unearth the full extent of her involvement. The plea that she is herself a victim cannot be accepted at this stage, as the material on record indicates her active participation. 11. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner/Accused No.2, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, as it would amount to giving a shield, protection or licence to the petitioner in respect of the specific allegations levelled against him, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)2. 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 (2020) 5 SCC 1 5 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.2. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 19.09.2026 PRA 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3994of 2026 19.09.2026 PRA