APHC010493302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9713/2025 Between:

1. A LLADI MAHESH KUMAR, S/O. SRINIVASA RAO AGED 29 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 2-52, KAAPULA PETA, NEAR RAMALAYAM, VANDRUM VILLAGE, UNDI MANDALAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BHIMAVARAM II TOWN POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

2. D ONEPUDI MALLIKA, D/O. BOSU AGED 29 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 26-8-

04, MUNSUBU GARI STREET, NEAR OLD RAMALAYAM, BALUSUMUDI, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. UDAY KUMAR VAMPUGADAVALA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. P NARAHARI BABU

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

3. LEGAL AID

4. K V L NARASIMHA RAO The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9713 of 2025

Order:

The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), by the petitioner, who is Accused No.1, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.220 of 2025 of Bhimavaram II Town Police Station, West Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 88, 318(2), 318(4) read with

3(5) of BNS.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is as follows:

This case pertains to sexual intercourse induced by deceitful means and a false promise of marriage, resulting in miscarriage and cheating, which occurred prior to 04.09.2025. The de facto complainant lodged a report on 04.09.2025 at about 2:00 p.m., stating that she is an MBA graduate and is residing at Bhimavaram along with her mother and sister. In the year 2017, while she was working as a Process Executive at OMEGA Health Care, Bhimavaram, she came into acquaintance with Accused No.1, who was working as an Executive in the same company. It is alleged that they developed a love relationship, during the course of which Accused No.1, on the false promise of marriage, had sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant. Consequently, she became pregnant. Thereafter, Accused No.1 allegedly forcefully caused miscarriage by administering tablets to her.

Despite repeated requests made by the de facto complainant, Accused No.1 refused to marry her. When the family members of Accused No.1 were approached in this regard, they also denied the marriage and allegedly threatened the de facto complainant.

3. Heard Mr. V. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the de facto complainant were in consensual relationship with the knowledge of their family members. It is contended that the essential ingredients of Section 69 of BNS do not attract against the petitioner. The petitioner never made any false promise of marriage not he forced the de facto complainant to take pills for abortion. The entire allegations are foisted only with a view to implicate the petitioner and his family members in criminal proceedings. The petitioner and the de facto complainant were closely associated for the past eight years.

Hence, prays to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is still pending and if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is every chance of tampering the evidence by threatening the prosecution witnesses. It is further contended that the petitioner under the guise of love and marriage, cheated the de facto complainant and caused miscarriage. It is further submitted that recording of Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of complaina