APHC010244282026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3839/2026 Between: 1. POTHULA ALIAS POTULA ANAND KUMAR, S/O NEELAM LAKSHMANNA, AGED 33 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2/90A, P.KOTTAPALLI,BUKKAYASAMUDRAM, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT- 515701. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.42 of 2026 on the file of Tuni Town Police Station, Kakinada District for the offences under Sections and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. ARUN SHOWRI G Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3839/2026 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 No.1, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with crime No.42 of 2026, on the file of Tuni Town Police Station, Kakinada District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 69, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard Sri Arun Showri.G, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.03.2026, the victim lodged a report with police alleging that the petitioner/accused No.1 induced her by stating that he was in love with her and would marry her. Believing his words, she developed a relationship with him, and later A1 had sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of her innocence. It is further alleged that A1 also took an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and four gold rings from the victim. It is further stated that the parents of the victim fixed the marriage on 14.02.2026, but A1 and his parents refused to perform the marriage. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the victim and that he has not committed any offence as alleged. It is further submitted that the petitioner is 3 doing private job and is the sole breadwinner of his family. The allegations made in the complaint are false, fabricated, and not believable, and are only a concocted story of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally prays to allow the petition by imposing suitable conditions. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the investigation in the present matter is not yet completed. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail as a prima facie case has been established against him. It is further contended that, if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is every likelihood that he may tamper with the evidence and hamper the ongoing investigation. She would further submit that there are specific overtacts made against the petitioner. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and upon careful perusal of the material on record, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the investigation is still pending and prima facie allegations are made against the petitioner. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are disputed questions of fact which require a full-fledged investigation and cannot be gone into at this stage. Granting of the pre-arrest bail to an accused is not a shield or protection for having committed an offence, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh 4 Sibbia v. State of Panjab1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi2. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence alleged and the stage of the investigation, this Court is of the opinion that it is not desirable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. 7. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. ___________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 04.05.2026. UPS 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 2(2020) 5 SCC 1 5 57 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3839/2026 Date: 04.05.2026 UPS