APHC010631502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12143/2025 Between: 1. YERRA NAGARAJU, S/O SESHAGIRI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O. KOTHAGUDEM VILLAGE, CHATRAI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI, THROUGH S.H.O. OF CHINNACHOWK U/G POLICE STATIONKADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. VICTIM, RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 26.11.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.P.NO.12143 OF 2025. ...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 may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused, on Anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the Police of Chinnachowk U/G (Upgrade) Police Station, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District in FIR No.329 of 2025 dated 04.10.2025 for the offence Under Section 69, 318 (4) of BNSS, and pass such 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 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 implead the Proposed Respondent, i.e., Patthi Sindhuri, D/o. P. Ramaiah, Aged about 30 years, R/o Dr. No. 32/72-2, Veerabrahmendra Swamy Street, Devuni Kadapa, Kadapa City, YSR Kadapa District, as Respondent No.2 in CRLP.No.12143 of 2025 to make her representation Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. THANJAVURU VENKATA SUMAN 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12143/2025 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 FIR.No.329 of 2025 dated 04.10.2025 of Chinnachowk U/G (Upgrade) Police Station, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 69, 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Thanjavuru Venkata Suman, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 and Mr.K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that prior to 04.10.2025, while the complainant and accused were working together in I.T.Company, the accused induced her and believing him, she gave Rs.15,00,000/- for purchase of joint plot and maintained a sexual relationship believing his false assurances. Later the accused left the company and joined in another company and began avoiding her and decided to marry his cousin. When she asked to marry her, the accused refused to marry her and blocked her. Realizing that she was cheated emotionally, physically and financially under a false promise of 4 marriage, she lodged the report. Basing on the same, the present crime has been registered against the accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/accused, is innocent, he has nothing to do with the alleged crime. The allegations made against the Petitioner are omnibus in nature and there is no material to connect him with the alleged offence. He would further submit that as per the contents of the complaint/report, the alleged incident is stated to have taken place prior to the year 2024. Therefore, the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not applicable to the present case, and the matter, if at all, would fall under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There is no material placed on record to demonstrate that the petitioner had made any false promise to the de facto complainant with a dishonest intention from the inception. It is settled law that a mere breach of promise to marry would not constitute the offence of rape unless it is established that the promise was false from the very beginning and was made solely with the intention to deceive. He would further submit that the relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2/De facto Complainant was purely consensual in nature. The same cannot be construed as an act induced by a false promise or misconception of fact. The present crime has been registered only with an intention to harass the Petitioner and to exert undue pressure upon him. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to 5 furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court to secure his presence for the purpose of investigation. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that there are specific overt-acts made against the petitioner/accused and the investigation is still in progress. 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 grant of anticipatory bail at this stage and he finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/defacto complainant would submit that there is prima facie case against the petitioner/accused. The complaint clearly discloses specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner. The material available on record, at this stage, is sufficient to show the involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged offence. The nature of the accusations and the circumstances narrated in the complaint require a thorough investigation. He finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material on record, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, investigation is at nascent stage and in light of the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. 6 8. Accordingly, the 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: 19.02.2026. UPS 7 240 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12143/2025 Dt: 19.02.2026 UPS