The Court made the following:

ORDER :

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 Crime No. 39 of 2026 of Chebrolu Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 69, 64(1) and 89 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

2. Heard Sri M.Laxman Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Notice is served on the defacto complainant in this matter.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner, who is presently working in CRDA, and the defacto complainant, who is working as a Nursing Assistant at the Primary Health Centre, Sangam Jagarlamudi, came to know each other at their workplace. It is alleged that, thereafter, the petitioner, under the guise of a false promise of marriage, deceitfully induced the defacto complainant into a physical relationship, thereby committing offences of cheating and causing miscarriage. The prosecution further alleges that the first such incident occurred in the month of June, 2021 at the residence of the defacto complainant, taking advantage of the fact that no one was present in the house. It is stated that the defacto complainant suffered a miscarriage in the month of December, 2024. It is also the case of the prosecution that, from January, 2025 onwards, the petitioner again misled the defacto complainant with false promises of marriage and continued to have physical relations with her on several occasions, as a result of which she became pregnant for the second time. It is alleged that the petitioner procured abortion pills and compelled her to consume the same, which resulted in another miscarriage. Further, on 23.01.2026, the petitioner is alleged to have gone to the house of the defacto complainant and, despite being informed that she was unwell, forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. It is also alleged that, upon the defacto complainant learning about a proposed marriage alliance of the petitioner with another woman, she questioned him over phone and insisted that he marry her, to which he refused and threatened to kill her.

Hence, the crime.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are closely related and that the relationship between them was in the nature of a conjugal relationship. He would further submit that the petitioner could not marry the defacto complainant without the consent of his family members, and as such, no offence is made out against him under Sections 64 or 69 of the BNS. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the petition by imposing appropriate conditions.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the investigation in the present matter is not yet completed and is pending for receipt of medical report. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail as a prima facie case has been established against him based on the material collected during the course of investigation. It is further contended that, if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is every likelihood that he may tamper with the evidence and hamper the ongoing investigation. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Considering the submissions made on either side and upon careful perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, that the contents of the complaint, prima facie, disclose that the petitioner obtained the co