APHC010113262026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1726/2026 Between: 1. MR GADI GANGA RAJU, S/O SRI LATE PYDI RAJU, HINDU, AGED 27 YEARS,, R/O D. NO. 45-43A -26- 8/3/2, SRNIVASANAGAR, AKKAYYAPALEM VISAKHAPATNAM-530024. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH P.M. PALEM P.S.REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI ...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 may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail as he is taken into Judicial custody on 20-1-2026 in Crime No.32/2026, dated. 19-1-2026, of PS P.M. PALEM Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. V VIJAYA KUMAR PONUKU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1726/2026 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, seeking regular bail in Cr.No.32 of 2026 of P.M.Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 89 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, who became acquainted with the accused in the year 2017 and was working at McDonald‟s, Visakhapatnam, had been residing in a shared accommodation with her friends since September 2024. In February 2024, the accused expressed his love towards her, which she accepted, and they subsequently entered into a live-in relationship. During the course of their relationship, the accused, on the promise of marriage, established physical relations with her on several occasions. In November 2025, when the complainant realized that she was pregnant, she requested the accused to marry her; however, he sought time and allegedly compelled her to terminate the pregnancy, resulting in a forced abortion on 20.12.2025. Thereafter, the accused gradually distanced himself from the complainant and, upon being questioned, denied any relationship and refused to marry her, leading to the lodging of the present complaint. 3 3. Heard Sri V.Vijaya Kumar Ponuku, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that notice was served on the defacto complainant through police and received instructions to submit arguments. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is innocent and has nothing to do with the alleged offence. He was falsely implicated him the present case at the instance of the victim/complainant. He has been in judicial custody since 20.01.2026. There is no prima facie material against him. Learned counsel finally submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and the request of the petitioner for bail may be considered. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that it is a case of rape on the victim on the promise of love and marriage. The investigation is still pending and material witnesses are yet to be examined and no charge sheet is filed. She submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, and hampering the ongoing investigation. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, there 4 is prima facie material against the petitioner. The contentions raised in the present petition are disputed questions of fact and requires detailed enquiry. in that view of the matter, having regard to the seriousness and gravity of the allegations and the stage of the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/Accused at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 16.03.2026 UPS 5 268 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1726 OF 2026 Dt: 16.03.2026 UPS