1 APHC010034372026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 513/2026 Between: 1. MEKA NAGA SAI RAM KURAR, S/O.MEKA SREENU OCC PVT. JOB, CASTE GOWDA, R/O. DOOR NO.121-3-74,AGED ABOUT 27YEARS KONTHAMURU ROAD, VENKATANAGARAM PANCHAYAT KATHERU ,NEAR GOSALA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM URBAN, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT .A.P. - 533 105 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, though the SHO, Rajahmundry Ill-Town P.S Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravati A.P state ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 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 grant Anticipatory Bail to the Petitioner/Accused under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 296 of 2025, on the file of the Rajahmundry III Town Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 69 and 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 2 1. PENDRA KISHORE Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. A V BADRA NAGA SESHAYYA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 513/2026 ORDER : The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.296 of 2025, on the file of the Rajahmundry III Town Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 69 and 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 2. The defacto complainant in this matter is suo moto impleaded as party- respondent in this matter. Mr.A.V.Badra Naga Seshayya, learned counsel offered to file vakalath for the defacto complainant. Registry is directed to verify and place the same on record. 3. Heard Mr.Pendra Kishore, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.A.V.Badra Naga Seshayya, learned counsel for the defacto complainant and Mr.K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant reported that while doing her internship at GEMS Medical College, Srikakulam, she became acquainted with the accused, who later proposed to her, and she accepted his proposal. Subsequently, she secured a medical seat at the same college and moved to Srikakulam to pursue her studies. The accused 4 expressed his intention to start a business there and began residing in the penthouse of the complainant’s residence. After suffering losses in his food business, he requested her gold ornaments, which she handed over believing his representations. On 05.01.2025, the accused came to her room and stayed with her. During that time, he obtained her photos and videos. On 06.07.2025, he allegedly called the complainant’s uncle and demanded money, threatening to upload the photos and videos on social media if the demand was not met. When the demand was refused, he sent the photos and videos to the complainant’s mother. Basing on the said complaint a case in Crime No.296 of 2025, on the file of the Rajahmundry III Town Police Station, East Godavari District, was registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 69 and 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioner/Accused, is innocent, he has nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court to secure his presence for the purpose of investigation. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab 1, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharastra 2, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar3, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2011) 1 SCC 694 3 (2014) 8 SCC 273 5 Maharastra 4, Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana 5, Uday v. State of Karnataka6, Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand7, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)8, the Judgments of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Prem Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh9, Chandrakant Jachhatri v. State of Chhattisgarh 10 and Kamendra Sahu v. State of Chattisgarh 11 and the Judgment of this Court in Alladi Mahesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that there is incriminating material against the Petitioner/Accused to show that he has threatened and blackmailed the victim demanding money, failing which, he will circulate her videos in the Social Media and to her relatives. If the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood of threatening of witnesses of prosecution and tampering of evidences of prosecution. Hence, it is not a fit case for granting of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/Accused. He finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant opposed the petition and would submit that there are specific overt-acts attributed against the Petitioner/accused. 4 (2019) 9 SCC 608 5 (2013) 7 SCC 675 6 (2003) 4 SCC 46 7 (2020) 10 SCC 108 8 (2020) 5 SCC 1 9 2024 (CGHC) 10 2024 (CGHC) 11 2024 (CG HC) 6 8. In view of the specific overt-acts attributed against the petitioner/accused, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail, as it would amount to providing a shield or protection to a person against whom specific overt acts attributed. Grant of pre-arrest bail is not a license for the commission of cognizable and non-bailable offences, as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi) supra. Hence, there are no merits in the petition. 9. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 12.02.2026. UPS 7 205 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 513/2026 Dt: 12.02.2026 UPS