APHC010428972026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE 25th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7078/2026 Between: 1. DEEPAK KUMAR, S/O. ACHITANAND PATHAK, AGED 24 YEARS.OCCUPATION TAXI DRIVER,PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BENE VILLAGE,JASHPUR DISTRICT, CHHATTISGARH STATE,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RUSTUMBADA VILLAGE,NEAR KUNAPAREDDY CONVENTION,NARASAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF A.P.,AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. VICTIM, (CRIME NO.97 OF 2026 OF NARASAPURAM TOWN POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT) RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 24.08.2026 IN CRL.P.NO.7078 OF 2026. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VENKAT CHALASANI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. MOHAMMAD SIRAAJRAZA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No.97 of 2026 of Narsapuram Town Police Station, West Godavari District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 75(2), 77, 78(2) & 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’) and Sections 66-C, 66-E, 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for brevity, ‘the I.T.Act.,’). 2. Sri Venkat Chalasani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated and that the offences alleged against him are punishable with imprisonment not exceeding seven years, thereby attracting the mandate of Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS.’ It is submitted that, contrary to the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1, no notice under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS.,’ was issued prior to the arrest of the Petitioner and that the reasons assigned by the Investigating Officer for dispensing with such notice are purely speculative and unsupported by any tangible material. Learned Counsel further submits that the Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 26.06.2026; the mobile device allegedly used in the commission of the offence has already been seized; digital evidence, including data obtained from Meta Platforms, has been secured; and the investigation is substantially complete except for the filing of the charge sheet. In such circumstances, the 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 3 apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses is wholly unfounded, particularly when the prosecution case rests predominantly upon electronic evidence already in the custody of the investigating agency. 3. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the earlier bail applications were rejected primarily on the ground that the investigation was at a crucial stage, a circumstance which no longer survives. Learned Counsel would also submit that the Petitioner is a taxi driver and the sole breadwinner of his family, having aged parents dependent upon his earnings, and that his continued incarceration serves no useful investigative purpose. The Petitioner undertakes to cooperate fully with the investigation, appear before the learned Trial Court on every date of hearing, and abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. The Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Petition. 4. Per contra, Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner disclose a grave and deeply disturbing course of conduct involving sustained cyber exploitation, intimidation, sexual harassment and invasion of the victim’s privacy. It is submitted that the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie reveals that the Petitioner, through an Instagram account styled as “DEEPAKPATHAK_9259”, initially gained the confidence of the de-facto complainant and thereafter subjected her to relentless psychological coercion 4 by transmitting obscene material and threatening to circulate her private videos among her family members unless she continued communicating with him. The prosecution further submits that, under the fear of public humiliation and social ostracization, the victim was compelled to comply with the Petitioner’s unlawful demands, including participation in video calls during which she was allegedly induced to engage in acts compromising her dignity and bodily privacy. It is contended that the consequences of the Petitioner’s actions were so devastating that the victim allegedly attempted to take her own life and, subsequently, upon disclosure of the incidents to her husband, the family was pushed to a state of extreme mental trauma and despair. The investigation further discloses that the Petitioner allegedly disseminated the victim’s private videos not only to her husband but also to several contacts available in her mobile phone, resulting in the circulation of such content through multiple mobile numbers and causing irreparable damage to her reputation and emotional well-being. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the offences alleged are of a serious nature involving digital evidence spread across multiple platforms and communication channels, requiring meticulous forensic and electronic investigation. Though the Petitioner seeks to assail the legality of his arrest by alleging non-compliance with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS.,’ and asserts that substantial investigation has been completed, such contentions, according to the prosecution, do not dilute the gravity of the accusations or the strong prima facie material collected against him. It is therefore contended 5 that, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the far- reaching impact on the victim and her family, and the ongoing efforts to secure and analyse electronic evidence, the Petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and urged to dismiss the Petition. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 7. On a careful perusal of the record, the allegations against the Petitioner are that, after establishing contact with the de-facto complainant through an Instagram account, he allegedly subjected her to continuous harassment and intimidation by transmitting obscene content and threatening to circulate her private videos unless she continued communicating with him. It is further alleged that, by exploiting such threats, he compelled the victim to participate in video calls of an objectionable nature and thereafter circulated her private videos to her husband and several contacts available in her mobile phone, causing severe mental trauma to the victim and her family, even driving her to an alleged attempt to commit suicide. The Petitioner was arrested on 26.06.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 91 days. The Petitioner is presently residing in Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. Petitioner has got fixed abode. 8. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon a careful examination of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the continued incarceration of the Petitioner is not warranted at this stage. Though the allegations levelled against the Petitioner 6 are undoubtedly serious in nature, it is not in dispute that the Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 26.06.2026 and that substantial progress in the investigation has already been achieved. The investigating agency has seized the mobile phone allegedly used in the commission of the offence and has collected the requisite electronic evidence, including data from the concerned digital platforms, thereby substantially mitigating the apprehension of tampering with material evidence. The offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment not exceeding seven years and the prosecution has not placed any compelling material before this Court to demonstrate that the Petitioner’s further custodial detention is indispensably necessary either for the purpose of investigation or for securing the administration of justice. At this stage, the Petitioner’s presence during trial can be adequately secured by imposing appropriate and stringent conditions. Bearing in mind the settled principle that pre-trial detention cannot be permitted to assume the character of punitive incarceration, the presumption of innocence operating in favour of the accused until proven guilty, this Court is satisfied that the Petitioner has made out a fit case for enlargement on regular bail, subject to such conditions as may be deemed appropriate to ensure his availability for investigation and trial. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions: i. The Petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on bail subject to him executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of 7 the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapuram. ii. The Petitioner/Accused shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on everyday between 10:00 a.m. and 05:00 p.m. till commencement of trial and shall mark his attendance in a separate register maintained for the said purpose. iii. The Petitioner/Accused shall not contact, communicate, interact, meet, or attempt to communicate, either directly or indirectly, with the de-facto complainant, her family members, witnesses, or any person acquainted with the facts of the case through any mode including mobile phone calls, messaging applications, social media platforms, e-mail, intermediaries, or any electronic means. iv. The Petitioner/Accused shall furnish his mobile phone number(s), e-mail address(es), and social media account details to the Investigating Officer and shall not change the same without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer. v. The Petitioner/Accused shall not create, operate, access, or use any anonymous, fake, pseudonymous or surrogate social media account during the pendency of the case. vi. The Petitioner/Accused shall keep his mobile phone switched on and shall share his live location with the Investigating Officer whenever required for the purpose of investigation. vii. The Petitioner/Accused shall not delete, erase, format, modify, encrypt, conceal, transfer, or tamper with any electronic device, digital account, cloud storage, social media account, or electronic record that may have relevance to the investigation. viii. The Petitioner/Accused shall not upload, circulate, forward, publish, repost, transmit, or cause the dissemination of any photograph, video, audio clip, personal data, or other material relating to the de- 8 facto complainant through any electronic platform whatsoever. ix. The Petitioner/Accused shall not enter the village/locality/place of residence or workplace of the de-facto complainant without prior permission of the learned Trial Court. x. The Petitioner/Accused shall surrender all electronic devices, storage devices, SIM cards, user credentials, and passwords, if required by the Investigating Officer, for the purpose of forensic examination and shall extend full cooperation in that regard. xi. The Petitioner/Accused shall not leave the territorial limits of West Godavari District without prior permission of the learned Trial Court. xii. The Petitioner/Accused shall file an affidavit before the Investigating Officer undertaking that he shall maintain good conduct and shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature during the pendency of the proceedings. xiii. In the event of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, or if the Petitioner/Accused is found attempting to influence witnesses, contact the victim, tamper with evidence, or obstruct the course of investigation, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail forthwith. xiv. The Petitioner/Accused shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. xv. The Petitioner/Accused shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 25.09.2026 VTS