logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1057 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 4242 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Parties : Yarlagadda Hemanth Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By The Public Prosecutor & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Parimi Rama Rayudu, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor, Legal Aid, Gollamudi Nagasatyanarayana, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 23-06-2026
Head Note :-
Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 437/438/439/482 -
Judgment :-

(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 enlarge the Accused No. 1/Petitioner on Anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the staff of the Narasapuram Rural P.S., in FIR vide Cr.No.64 of 2026, and pass)

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 No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.64 of 2026 of Narasapuram Rural Police Station, West Godavari District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 69, 78(1)(i), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned Legal Aid counsel for Respondent No.2

3. The case of the prosecution is that since October, 2022, Accused No.1, namely, Yarlagadda Hemanth, had been harassing the De facto complainant, namely, Sirra Shalini, and forcing her to accept his love proposal. It is alleged that on 21.12.2024 at about 11.00 PM, at the house of the De facto complainant situated at Arundhatipeta H/o. Kopparru Village, Narasapuram Mandal, Accused No.1 committed sexual assault on her after threatening her and thereafter continued to sexually exploit her on the false promise of marriage. It is further alleged that Accused No.1 took nude photographs and videos of the De facto complainant and blackmailed her, while Accused Nos.2 and 3 assisted him in the commission of the said acts. When the De facto complainant insisted on marriage, Accused No.1 refused, and Accused Nos.4 to 6 supported him and refused the marriage proposal. Thereafter, the De facto complainant lodged a report with the police, based on which the present crime was registered.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper while granting anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has a fixed abode.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the De facto complainant, being influenced by the internal family property disputes between the Petitioner's sister and the victim's maternal uncle, has foisted a false case with malicious intention. The report is vague and far from the truth. Hence, learned counsel urged this Court to allow the Petition.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, stating that the accusations against the Petitioner are well-founded. It is submitted that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is required and that there are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is liable to be charged under the provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012 as well. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she corroborated the contents of the complaint lodged with the police. Hence, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor urged this Court to dismiss the Petition.

7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

8. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is:

               "Whether the Petitioner is entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail?"

9. As seen from the averments of the complaint, while the De facto complainant was a minor, the Petitioner followed her and had sexual intercourse with her several times. He threatened the De facto complainant to kill her. While having sexual intercourse with the De facto complainant/victim, he took her photographs and videos and blackmailed her by threatening to post the nude photographs and videos of the De facto complainant on social media. He sexually assaulted her several times. The Petitioner refused to marry the De facto complainant. The offences were alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner when the De facto complainant was 16 years of age. Therefore, the provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012, would also apply.

10. In view of the specific allegations levelled against the petitioner and the accusations being well founded, the request for enlarging the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on pre-arrest bail is not found convincing and reasonable. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail as it would amount to granting protection or a shield to the person against whom specific allegations have been levelled, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab ((1980) 2 SCC 565) and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) ((2020) 5 SCC 1).

11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal