The Hon’ble Sri Justice J.Sreenivas Rao Criminal Petition No.6682 of 2025

Order

:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.500 of 2025 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 85, 318(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. Heard Mr. J.Abhishek learned counsel representing Mr. Kavadi Naresh, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.04.2025 at about 11:59 hours, the complainant filed a complaint stating that her marriage with accused No.2 was solemnized on 23.11.2023 at Hyderabad and only a few days thereafter, she came to know that her husband is disinterested in family life and she informed the same to the petitioner, who is the grandfather of her husband and the petitioner, instead of taking to her husband, took advantage of the situation and whenever the complainant was alone at home, had forcible physical relationship with her and in order to avoid the petitioner, she came back to her parents’ house at Hyderabad, but the petitioner used to come to her parents’ house in their absence and continued the harassment and hence, she informed the same to her mother. Basing on the said complaint, the aforesaid crime was registered against the petitioner and other accused for the aforesaid offences.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime and there is no relationship between the petitioner and the complainant. He submits that there are matrimonial disputes between the complainant and accused No.2 and a petition for divorce is pending before the competent court and in order to resolve those disputes, the complainant has impleaded the petitioner as accused in the present crime. Learned counsel further submits that vague allegations have been levelled in the complaint and there is no mention therein as to the date of offence and the petitioner is 72 years old and he usually resides in USA but as he is suffering from cardiac problem, he is undergoing treatment in India and that he is not having any criminal antecedents and prays to grant anticipatory bail as he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigating officer for investigation and abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench) in Ghanshyam Sen v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/MP/0235/2022 and of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Gade Raja Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh2

2 MANU/AP/0682/2021

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner/accused No.1 has committed grave offence and specific allegations are levelled against him so as to attract the ingredients of Section 64(2)(m) of BNS. He further submits that mere non-mentioning of the date of alleged offence in the complaint is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner and the complainant has specifically mentioned the role of the petitioner in the alleged offence and the investigation is at the threshold and if the petitioner is granted bail at this stage, he will interfere with the investigation and tamper with the evidence. Hence, he prays to dismiss this criminal petition.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there is no dispute that the petitioner is relative of the complainant and the complainant specifically mentioned the role of the petitioner in the alleged offen