(Prayer: 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 grant an Anticipatory Bail in event of arrest of the petitioner/Accused in Crime No. 04 of 2026 of Railway Koduru P.S. Tirupathi District for alleged offence under 173 BNSS for alleged offence under Section 308(5), 351 (2), 61(2) r/w 3 (5) BNS Act ,and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 grant an Interim Protection to the Petitioner / Accused by directing the Crime No. 04 of 2026 Railway Koduru P.S. Tirupathi District, not to take any Coercive Steps against the Petitioner /Accused in Crime No 04/2026 dt 07/01/2026 of Railway Koduru P.S. Tirupathi District, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition in the interest of the justice.)

1. 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 Cr.No.04/2026 on the file of Railway Koduru Police Station, Tirupathi District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 308(5), 351(2), 61(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

2. Heard Sri Sateesh Galla, Sri P.Sai Krishna Azad, Sri Kashapogu Suresh representing Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the defacto complainant submitted a complaint stating that the accused began visiting her son’s office, who is an M.L.A., under the pretext of personal difficulties. Gradually, the accused developed an acquaintance with her son and her family and introduced herself as a Civil Services aspirant seeking financial assistance. Believing her representations, the complainant’s family, along with another family, provided monetary help on several occasions. Later, the accused informed them that she had failed in the examinations but continued to contact the complainant and her family in a distressed manner. Subsequently, she demanded Rs. 25 crores to be paid immediately and threatened that if the amount was not paid, she would falsely allege that her son had an illegal relationship with her. She also threatened to circulate this false information on social media, thereby causing mental harassment to the complainant and her family.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is a public servant and has nothing to do with the alleged incident. He further submits that the allegations made in the present case are vague and omnibus in nature, and there is no material to establish the commission of any offence against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is a married woman, now divorced, and has a child. The petitioner herself is a victim of the acts of the complainant’s son, against whom she has already filed complaints with the NHRC and the DGP, resulting in a case being registered. The present case, it is contended, has been filed solely to harass the petitioner. He further submits that, except for the offence of extortion, all the other alleged offences are punishable with a maximum imprisonment of seven years. 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 petitioners finally prays to allow the petition by imposing any conditions.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that CCTV footage and CDR evidence show that the petitioner visited the office of the complainant’s son several times. He further submitted that there are other victims who have also fallen into the trap of the petitioner, and that the present case constitutes extortion. It was also pointed out that the petitioner lodged a complaint against the complainant’s son only after the registration of the present case, and that this anticipatory bail application has been filed directly before this Hon’ble Court without first approaching the Court below. It is further contended that, if the petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there is every likelihood of their tampering with the evidence and hampering the ongoing investigation. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant’s son is an influential person and there is a strong likelihood that he may influence the investigation or prosecution. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court directly, seeking anticipatory bail.

7. Considering the submissions made and upon careful perusal of the material on record, and having regard to the facts that the petitioner is a woman, a public servant, and that a case has also been registered based on a complaint lodged by her, this Court is of the view that it is not appropriate at this stage to decide the question of culpability by accepting the allegations. In view of these circumstances, and considering that the petitioner’s case is lodged against the son of the defacto complainant, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail to the petitioner/accused.

8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions:

                  i. The petitioner/Accused shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within a period of one (1) week from today and shall furnish personal bonds for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;

                  ii. On release, the petitioner/Accused shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, once in a week i.e., on every Saturday, between 10:00 AM and 05:00 PM, till filing of charge sheet.

                  iii. The petitioner/Accused shall make herself available for investigation as and when required and shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer for further investigation.

                  iv. The petitioner/Accused, shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;

                  v. The petitioner/Accused shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the concerned Court.

                  vi. The petitioner/Accused shall surrender her passport, if any, to the Court concerned. If she claims that she does not have passport, she shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Court concerned.

                  vii. The petitioner/Accused shall not directly or indirectly make any statements relating to this case in the social media or any other social network platform.

9. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

10. It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and they shall not be construed as opinion on the merits of the Crime.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.