APHC010187582026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2774/2026 Between: KORIBILLI NANIBABU, S/O K.DASUBABU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,R/O.H.NO.18-35-48/1, JAGAJEEVAN RAM COLONY,VISAKHAPATNAM COMMISSIONERATE, VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,PS MUWALAVARIPALEM,REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.RAVADA LIKHITHA, D/O BHASKARRAO,H.NO 6-10-14, CHINAWALTAIR, PEEETHALAVANIPALEM,VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.SYAM BABU DEEPATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 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. 481 of 2025 of Muvvalavanipalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, 2 registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 69 and 88 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard Sri Syam Babu Deepati, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Notice is served on the defacto complainant in this matter. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant came to know each other at their workplace, and, thereafter, under a false promise of marriage, the petitioner deceitfully induced the defacto complainant into sexual intercourse, which is alleged to constitute offences of cheating, coupled with voluntary miscarriage. The specific incident is stated to have occurred on 24.10.2024 at about 9:00 A.M. in Room No. 408 of Rosewood Hotel, bearing D.No. 2-35-71/1, Sector-10, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam City. It is further alleged that the defacto complainant suffered a miscarriage in the month of May, 2025. It is also the case of the prosecution that, when the defacto complainant insisted that the petitioner marry her on 29.10.2025, the petitioner avoided her and allegedly threatened to commit suicide if she persisted with such insistence. Hence, the crime. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the petitioner and the defacto complainant are majors. According to the version of the prosecution itself, the defacto complainant voluntarily had a physical relationship with the petitioner. In such circumstances, no offence is made out against the petitioner and the ingredients required to attract the offence under Section 69 of the BNS are not satisfied. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally prays to allow the petition by imposing any conditions. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the investigation in the present matter is not yet completed and is pending for examination of some crucial witnesses. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail as a prima facie case has been 3 established against him based on the material collected during the course of investigation. 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, therefore, prayed 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 for examination of certain crucial witnesses 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 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: 17.04.2026 SAB 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 2(2020) 5 SCC 1 4 177 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2774 of 2026 Dt.17.04.2026 SAB