APHC010286122026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4601/2026 Between: 1. PAMIDI VENKATESH, S/O PAMIDI RAMESH BABU,AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,R/O H.NO. 13 VILLAGENAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through S.H.ONaguluppalapaduPolice Station,Prakasam District,Represented by P P High Court Of Andhra PradeshAmaravathi. 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 Courtpleased to enlarge the Petitioner/ Accused on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 47 of 2026 dated 08.05.2026 on the file Naguluppalapadu offences punishable under Sections 78 (1) (ii), 79, 351(2) BNS and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4601/2026 PAMIDI VENKATESH, S/O PAMIDI RAMESH BABU,AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,R/O H.NO. 13-94, PANCHAYATHI ROAD, UPPUGUNDUR VILLAGENAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH - 523186. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through S.H.ONaguluppalapaduPolice Station,Prakasam District,Represented by P P High Court Of Andhra PradeshAmaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to enlarge the Petitioner/ Accused on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 47 of 2026 dated 08.05.2026 on the file Naguluppalapadu Police Station, Prakasam district for offences punishable under Sections 78 (1) (ii), 79, 351(2) BNS and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO PAMIDI VENKATESH, S/O PAMIDI RAMESH BABU,AGED ABOUT 25 94, PANCHAYATHI ROAD, UPPUGUNDUR VILLAGENAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through S.H.ONaguluppalapaduPolice Station,Prakasam District,Represented ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to enlarge the Petitioner/ Accused on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 47 of 2026 dated Police Station, Prakasam district for offences punishable under Sections 78 (1) (ii), 79, 351(2) BNS and pass 2 The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4601/2026 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 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.47 of 2026 of Naguluppalapadu Police Station, Prakasam District registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 78(1)(ii), 79, 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant and the accused are the childhood friend. For the past few months, the accused started harassing the complainant by sending obscene messages stating that he loved her and would marry her. As a result, the complainant blocked the accused phone number. Then the accused sent messages to the complainant’s parents falsely stating that they were in a relationship and separated. The complainant’s parents had fixed her marriage with another person. While the complainant and her mother were at the bus stand, the accused approached them and abused them in filthy language and threatened them he would see her end and ruin her life. He also threatened that he would morph their friendly photographs and upload them on social media. On 02.05.2026, the accused sent messages to the complainant’s bridegroom 4 alleging that he was in a relationship with the complainant, due to which the marriage alliance was reportedly cancelled. 4. Mr. Asif, learned counsel appearing for Ms.Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused vehemently argued that the petitioner is a childhood friend of defacto complainant. The petitioner was falsely implicated in this case because of the failed love proposal. He is a law abiding citizen. He is not committed any offence. The alleged offences are punishable below seven years. The petitioner is entitled to have a notice contemplated under Section 35 of BNSS pursuant to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar 1 . The petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation officer. There is no need to custodial interrogation. It is submitted that anticipatory bail is a valuable right to protect personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution of India as per the judgment of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab2. Hence, it is urged to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail. 5. On the other hand, Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed to grant of bail to the petitioner submitting that the petitioner had allegedly harassed the defacto complainant whose marriage was fixed. It is further alleged that the petitioner used abusive language and threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences because the defacto complainant would married another person without marrying him. It is also alleged that the petitioner has morphing the photographs of defacto 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 2 (1980) 2 SCC 565 5 complainant and threatened that those photographs would be posted in social media. Hence, the specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner by the defacto complainant and urged to dismiss the criminal petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 8. As seen from the record, the petitioner aged about 25 years and the defacto complainant aged about 26 years are of the same village. They studied together upto 10th class. They acquainted with each other. The petitioner and defacto complainant are working as software employees. Based on the previous acquaintance the petitioner and the defacto complainant remain friends. It is alleged by the defacto complainant that taking advantage of the friendship, petitioner has been allegedly harassed the defacto complainant for the past three months under the guise of love and wanted to marry her. The petitioner harassed the defacto complainant through calls and messages. As the behavior of the petitioner was not liked by the defacto complainant, she blocked the phone number of the petitioner. Then onwards, the petitioner started sending messages through e-mail and whatsapp to her family members and colleagues stating that the petitioner and defacto complainant were in a relationship and had broken up. Even the defacto complainant warned the petitioner several times along with her parents also 6 there was no change in the behavior of the petitioner. The marriage of the defacto complainant was fixed with another person. After coming to know about the marriage, the petitioner abused the defacto complainant and her mother under filthy language at bus stand and threatened with dire consequences. It is alleged by the defacto complainant that the petitioner has been sending messages through his phone to the person whom the defacto complainant supposed to marry, falsely claiming that there was a relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Then marriage was stopped. There are specific over acts attributed against the petitioner. 9. In view of the specific allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail as it would amount to granting protection or shield to the persons against whom specific allegations are levelled, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab3 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)4. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 16.06.2026 AG 3 (1980) 2 SCC 565 4 (2020) 5 SCC 1 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4601/2026 Date: 16.06.2026 AG