APHC010200962026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3270/2026 Between: 1. GANDRETI APPANNA, S/O. MODAYYA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O.MODAVALASA VILLAGE 85 POST, DENKADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. GANDRETI GANESH,, S/O. APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O.MODAVALASA VILLAGE AND POST, DENKADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. 2. VICTIM GIRL, XXX ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.2 and 3 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 20 of 2026 on the file of Denkada Police Station, Vizianagaram District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3270 OF 2026 ORDER:- The instant Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [for short, „B.N.S.S‟], is filed on behalf of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 20 of 2026 on the file of Denkada Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 6 r/w 5(1), 17 of POCSO ACT, 2012, Sections 64(2)(m), 49, 87, 127(2), 308(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the de-facto complainant gave report stating that on 23.04.2025, the accused exploited her family's financial hardship to orchestrate a forced marriage between her and one Allaboyina Suri. Following the marriage, the complainant‟s husband ignored her lack of consent and subjected her to non-consensual sexual intercourse, causing her severe physical pain and trauma. After she fled back to her maternal home, the accused and certain elders demanded an illegal payment of Rs. 50,000/- to allow a separation, leading the complainant to seek legal action for sexual assault, forced marriage, and extortion. 3. Heard Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Notice is served on the de-facto complainant through Police. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the present crime. The petitioners have no connection with the alleged offence and are innocent. The alleged marriage between Accused No.1 and the de-facto complainant is not within the knowledge of the petitioners, and they did not attend the said marriage. There are no ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 6 read with 5(1) and 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Sections 64(2)(m), 49, 87, 127(2), 308(2), and 351(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS against the petitioners. It is further submitted that Petitioner No. 1/Accused No. 2 is aged above 70 years, is in poor health, and is suffering from heart and kidney ailments. He is unable to walk, has undergone surgery, and requires regular medical attention. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that the petitioners instigated Accused No.1 to marry the victim girl and they abetted Accused No.1 to perform sexual intercourse and rape against the victim girl and they demanded money for separation of the victim girl with her husband. She further submits that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed in this matter showing the petitioners as absconding. There are specific allegations against the petitioners. If the petitioners are released on anticipatory bail, there is every possibility that they may tamper with the prosecution witnesses. She finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 4 6. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material on record, and in view of the fact that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed, and as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that there are specific allegations against the petitioners, this Court is of the view that no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners. However, taking into account the age and health condition of Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2, subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 shall appear before the concerned Special Court, within one (1) week from today and shall furnish a personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of the concerned Special Court; ii) The petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 shall be available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer; iii) The petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Investigating or Police Officer. iv) The petitioner No.1/ Accused No.2 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court. If he claims that he does not 5 have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the concerned Court. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed with respect to Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2. However, in respect of Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 8. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. 9. It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and they shall not be construed as opinion on the merits of the Crime. ___________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 05.05.2026. UPS 6 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3270 OF 2026 Date: 05.05.2026 UPS