logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 216 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 864 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Parties : Bhumireddy Venkata Ramana Reddy Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Its Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P. Amaravathi & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: T. Diwakar Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 12-02-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 480 and 483 -
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 may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/Accused on bail in connection with the F.I.R No. 753 of 2025, on the file of Jammalamadugu U/G Police Station, Y.S.R Kadapa District and pass such)

1. This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the Petitioner herein/Accused, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.753 of 2025 of Jammalamadugu U/G Police Station, Y.S.R.Kadapa District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 78(1)(i)(ii), 351(2), 64(1) r/w 62 of B.N.S.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, on 14.11.2025, at about 10.30 A.M., while the LW-1 i.e., the victim was attending agricultural work alone in her field at Bheemarayuni Kottala Village, the accused approached her, behaved indecently, touched her, pulled her hand and attempted to satisfy his sexual desire and when the victim fell on the ground, the accused sat on her back, attempted to commit rape and threatened her with dire consequences. Basing the complaint of the victim, a case was registered under Sections 78(1)(i)(ii), 351(2), 64(1) r/w 62 of B.N.S against the accused. The Accused/Petitioner is remanded to judicial custody on 18.11.2025.

3. Heard Mr.T.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that notice was served on the defacto complainant/Respondent No.2 through Police. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein is the sole Accused and the Petitioner was falsely implicated in the alleged crime, he is no way concerned with the offence. He further submits that the Petitioner/Accused and the defacto complainant are from the same village and there are some personal disputes between them, due to which, the present false case has been lodged against the Petitioner/Accused. He would further submit that all the material part of the investigation is completed and the Police have also filed preliminary charge sheet. Therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the Petitioner/Accused is required. He would further submit that the Petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court to secure his presence for the purpose of investigation in the event the Petitioner is enlarged on bail. Learned counsel finally prays to allow the present petition.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the petition and contended that the investigation is still pending for RFSL report. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Considering the submissions made, on perusal of the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, that the Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.11.2025 and the fact that the crucial part of the investigation is over and is pending for RFSL report, the question of tampering with the investigation or influencing the witnesses does not arise. This is not the stage to decide the culpability of the Petitioner/Accused by accepting the allegations. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on regular bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the Petitioner/ Accused hereby enlarged on regular bail on the following conditions;

                  i. The Petitioner/Accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu.

                  ii. The Petitioner/Accused shall not directly or indirectly tamper with evidence nor influence, intimidate, or induce any prosecution witness.

                  iii. The Petitioner/Accused shall not contact any of the prosecution witnesses or co-accused, except during legal proceedings.

                  iv. The Petitioner/Accused shall appear before the Station House Officer, concerned, once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., until further orders.

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

9. 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.
 
  CDJLawJournal