tN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl WEDNESDAY, THE ^WENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX :PRESENT; THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 206 OF 2026 Between: Syed Arshad Ahmed, S/o.Iqbal, Muslim, aged 36 11 lane, A.T.AgraharamGuntur, Guntur District years, r/o.Sri Sai Nivas, ... Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravathi. 2. Veeravalli Sri Lakshmi Prasanna, Defacto Complainant w/o.Veeravalli Dana Srinivasa Rao,D/o.Kukkala Veerraju, Hindu, aged 41 years rlo.7*'' line, Srinivasaraopet,Guntur, Guntur District rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 482 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the CriminalPetition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to enlarge the petitioner/Accused on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the case in Crime No.412/2025 of Nagarampalem P.S., The petition, coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the Sri.HABIBULLA SHAIK Advocate for the Petitioner arguments of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent No.1 and the Court made the following. APHC010012902026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 206/2026 [3396] Between: SYED ARSHAD AHMED, S/O.IQBAL, MUSLIM, AGED 36 YEARS,R/O.SRI SAI NIVAS, 11 LANE, A.T.AGRAHARAMGUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATHI. 2.VEERAVALLI SRI LAKSHMI COMPLAINANTW/O.VEERAVALLI PRASANNA, DANA RAO,D/O.KUKKALA VEERRAJU, HINDU, AGED 41 YEARSRLOT LINE, SRINIVASARAOPET,GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): DEFACTO SRINIVASA Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.HABIBULLASHAIK Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER; The instant petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023^ has been filed by the Petitioner / Accused, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.412 of 2025 on the file of Nagarampalem Police 1 In short ‘BNSS’ 2 Station, Guntur District, which is registered for the offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023*. Heard Sri Habibulla Shaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Accused and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State / Respondent. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, this is a case of consensual relationship between two married persons. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner herein is the sole Accused and is an Advocate. It is alleged that Respondent No.2 contacted the Petitioner in the year 2020 for getting divorce from her husband. It is submitted that Respondnet No.2 and her husb'and got divorce by mutual consent in F.C.O.P.No.100 of 2023 vide Order dated 04.09.2023 on the file of Family Court, Guntur, wherein, the name of the Petitioner was not shown as counsel on record for Respondent No.2. Learned Asisistant Public Prosecutor would submit that, investigation is pending for arrest of the Accused. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the Petitioner is a practicing Advocate and Respondent No.2 never engaged the Petitioner as her counsel. It is finally submitted that the Petitioner is ready for furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Hence, prayed to enlarge the Petitioner on anticipatory bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samadhan vs. State of Maharashtra and another^ wherein, it was held as under; 2. 3. 4. 5. “28. We find that teh present case is not a case where the appellant lured respondent No.2 solely for physical pleasures and then vanished. The relationship continued for a period of three long years, ^ In short‘BNS’ ^ 2025 Supreme (SC) 1969 3 which is a considerable period of time. They remained close and emotionally involved. In suph cases, physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of offence of rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage. ” \ Notice which was sent to Respondent No.2 was returned as ‘refused’. 6. I Considering the submissions made and on a perusal of the material placed ] 7. on record, it is a case where the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 had been in physical relationship for some time during subsistence of the marriage of Respondent No.2 with her husband. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this is not the stage to 8. decide the culpability of the Accused by accepting the allegations made against Respondent No.2 refused to receive the notice and did not choose to him. appear to submit her objections. The allegations made against the Petitioner require detailed enquiry. The investigation is not Analyzed so far. In that view, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed granting anticipatorybail to 9. the Petitioner/Accused, on the following conditions: The Petitioner / Accused shall appear before the concerned Magistrate (i) Court, within one week from today and shall furnish personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of concerned Magistrate Court; The Petitioner shall be available for investigation as and when required (ii) by the Investigating Officer; (iv) The Petitioner 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 him / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Investigating or Police Officer. ^ Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. / SD/- T. SRINIVASA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// '^rCER SECTION O To, 1. The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile, Guntur District. 2. The Station House Officer, Nagarampalem Police station, Guntur District. 3. Veeravalli Sri Lakshmi Prasanna, w/o.Veeravalli Dana Srinivasa Rao, D/o.Kukkala Veerraju, rio. 7**’ line, Srinivasaraopet,Guntur, Guntur District (by RPAD) 4. One CC to SRI. HABIBULLA SHAIK Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. [OUT] 6. One spare copy. HIGH COURT DR.VJP,J DATED:21/01/2026 I ORDER CRLP.No.206 of 2026 7^ C3 O u # ALLOWED m ey» < V I