APHC010580112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11265/2025 Between:

Kuna Bharat Kumar ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

3. LEGAL AID The Court made the following:

ORDER

Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the BNSS by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.134 of 2025 of Laveru Police Station, Srikakulam District, registered for the alleged offences punishable

under Sections 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the BNS, 3(2)(va) the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the SCs and STs (PoA) Act

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned legal aid counsel for the 2^nd respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. The petitioner, aged about 27 years, is present along with the victim/2^nd respondent.

4. The 2^nd respondent has filed an affidavit, enclosing the marriage certificate, stating that she and the petitioner were married on 08.12.2025. The marriage certificate was issued by the Registrar of Marriages. In the affidavit, the 2^nd respondent submits that she had lodged a report with the police against the petitioner on the ground that he failed to keep his promise to marry her. She further submits that subsequently the petitioner expressed his willingness to marry her and she also expressed her willingness to marry him. Accordingly, they got married and are living happily together. The marriage was solemnized on 27.11.2025 and the same was registered with the Sub-

Registrar, Ponduru, Srikakulam District, on 08.12.2025.

5. Pursuant to the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant, the police registered a case in Crime No.134 of 2025 on 21.10.2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 69 of ‘the BNS.,’ and Section 3(2)(va) of ‘the SCs and STs (PoA) Act’. As the victim/2^nd respondent belongs to the SC community and, at the time of the alleged intercourse, she was a minor, the provisions of ‘the POCSO Act.,’ were added at a later stage of

investigation. The petitioner is serving as a soldier in the Indian Army. The grievance of the 2^nd respondent was that the petitioner had loved her and maintained physical relations with her but did not marry her earlier, as his mother did not permit the marriage.

6. Be that as it may, the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent are now married and are living together peacefully as husband and wife, and the petitioner serving as a soldier in the Indian Army, and considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned here, the request of the petitioner requires positive consideration.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0787/2025 at para No.9 it is held as under:

“9...In our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence. This Court has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions, and has termed it a folly³ to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC”.

8. In Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, Spl Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7004 of 2025 the Hon’ble Supreme Court at un-numbered para No.7 it is held as under:

“We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel appearing for