Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Neelam Harikrishna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 September, 2025
E
`|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR
MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
/
:PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO ,
= 5ngsdrz <
TEae -
CRIMINALPETITION NO:3919OF2025 /
Between :
fueelam Harikrishna, S/o Neelam Lakshmanna, Aged 33 years, R/o
D.NO.2/90A, P.Kottapa'Il-, Bukkayasamudram, Ananthapur District-
515701
Petitioner/Accused-1
AND
1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court
iz ofAndhra Pradesh.
2. Golla Tejaswl-ni, D/o. Late Venkateshulu, Agecl 29 years, Occ. Ward
rAmenities Secretary, MothukpaIIi, HI-nduPur Town, Satya Sai DistrI'Ct.
Respondent No.2 is impleaded as per the Court order dated
25.04.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in CrI.P.No.3919 of 2025.
Respondent/Complainant
PetitI-On under Section 482 of BNSS (438 of Cr.P.C)., is fI-led Praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed I-n Support Of the Crl-minal
Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused
No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest in cr.No.51 of 2025 on the file of
Hindupur I Town Police Station, SrI-Sathya Sai DistrI-Ct for the OffenCeS under
Sections.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the
affidavit filed in support thereof and +the earlier orders of±he High Cow,rt dated.
23.07.2025, 31.07.2025,14.08.2025,19-08.2025, 30.08.2025 a 10.09.2025
mac!e herein and upon hearing the arguments of sri ARUN ShlOWRi G,
Advocate for the petitioner and of puBLiC PROSECUTOFR, for the
Respondent No.1 and ®f Sri N. ASWARTHA NARAYANA, Advocate for the
Respondent No.2 and the Court mac!e the followimg;
¢
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT ANIARAVATi
****
I CRIMINAL PETITON CASE No.3919 of 2025
Between:
Neelam Harikl-ishna
I
...PETITIONE-R a
I
AND
1. StateofAPrepbyitsPP
2. GollaTejaswini
...RESPODENT
****
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED 15.09_2025
a
Dr-YLR, J
Crl.P.No.3919 of2O25
Dated 15.69._20-25
UBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAG
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
lmla`y' be aiiO`W-ed tO See the Jucigment?
Yes/No
2. \.A.J.hethe.r the cop\J' Of Judgment ma`yJ be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? /
Yes_/N o
/
3. Whether His Lorclsrli'P `WiSh tO See the // o
/..,
\/
/.I
fair copy of the J'udgment? Yes/No
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.3919 of 2025
Dated 15.09.2025
* THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RA®
+ CRIMINAL PE""®N CASE N®.39fl9 ®f 2©25
o/o 15.09.2025
# Between:
Between : I
Neelam Harikrishna
...PETITIONER
AND
1. TheStateofAPrepbyitsPP
'2. Go]IaTeJ-aSivinj
...RESPODENT
I Counsel forthe Petitioner :K.S.Murthy repd Sri Arun Showri. G
I
^Counsel for the Respondent: Assistant Public Prosecutor
I
\
< Gist: I
/
The Order of the court was deIIIV.ered by
Dr. Justice Y.LakshmanaRao :-For the convenience of exposition,
this order is divided into the following parts :-
A. CASE OF THE' PROSECUTION
B. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
C. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE
I
D. ARGUMENTS OF THE ,JRJESPONDENT NO.2
i,:, I
D, POINT FOR CONSIDERATION
/
Dr.YLR?,-J ,
Crl.P.No.3919 of 2025
Dated 15_09.2025
E. ANALYSIS
F= e©N_CLuS!ON
> Head Ne±e:
? Cases referred:
LD`~ D`~,-_l~` CDt-:C`](tD'lC±
1Cr!.P. No.7606 of 2025 dated 07.08.2025
2 20148SCC913 I
3 2024 AHC 135775 (Neutral Citation)
I
I+ MAN U/'AP/1626/'2024
=
® ?v-iA[fav"J,JS C/85 31,f2 0 06 ,
6 crI.P.No.76O6 of 2025 dated 07.08.2025
7 crLP.No.2166 of 2025 ci-ateci 27.03.20-25
8 nvlAN UI,JSC/0787/2025
CDtI'`m'bngr`L|u],I Cf)_`,_"|p`= liFG,¢Elco`e-i `-i .i;I: i; .€;:.I Peti+lior[ (Cr!.) No.7004 of 2025
OO O Online SC 89
/ r!.`, NG_3475 of 2025
S±cho LO SCC Online SC 696
rN
co(J 9 SCC 608
-,,|-
iOSCC iO8
a.LriP.r-I
I
*-\--.>A`.
5
Dr.YLR, J .
CrI.P.No.3919 of 2025
Dated 15.09.2025
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAX-SHNIANA RA©
I
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.-39fl9 of 2025
ORDER:
i The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya I Nagarik suraksha sanhI-ta, 2023 (for brevity fthe BNSS') by the Petitioner/Accused No.1seekI'ng for grant Of Pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.51 of 2025 of Hindupur I Town Police Station, Sri Sathya Sat District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 318 (4), 69 and 351 (2) read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity fthe BNS').
I CASE OF THE PROSEC UTION I
2. The prosecution states that on o6.03.2025, a 9aSeWaS registered based on a complaint byt a 29 year old woman from the~ BC-D (Golla) community, working as a ward Amenities secretary I-n Hindupur from 2019. De-facto complainan{ alleges that she was in a relationship with Petitioner/Accused No.1, Neelam Harikrishna, an Assistant Engineer, who is her superior at work.
According to 'the complainant, Harikrishna/petitioner professed love and Promised marriage, whI'Ch led her to eventually enter into a relationship despite inI'tial reluctance. She alleges that during the covID-19 pandemic in 2020, I while working together, he attempted to physically exploit her. 'n 2022, he I allegedly assured mother of de-facto complainant of, his intention to marry her, stating he would I-nVolve his parents after his elder sister's marriage. loll-owing \--, c**-*ysap Dr.YLR,.J Crl_P.No.3919 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 his sister's marriage in August 2024, the Complainant claims that Harikrishr[a,Jr>e{i{ior!er DrOmiSeC! +lO I bring r:iS Parents for marriage ta.!k`S in Januarv 2025, but failed to do so. On 24.02.2025, the petitioner aiiegeciiy told her there \,A`.,fas nO re!atjOnShiP anC! that he \,A,JOu!d be marr\,ring Sam.eone else, asking her to move on. Additionally, his brother (Accused No.2) aiiegediy threatened. her with false SC/ST cases if She, did not leave Harikris:h!r!a_.,Jpet.iticJn_er a!Or±e. A Zero F!R was initia!!\.y' filed a{ PLlttaParthi Town I Police Station on 04.03.2025 anc! later transferrec! oh point of territ6ria! I jurisdiction to H.ir:I_dupur TowrI Police S+lation,- registered as Cr.NcL51/2025 lJnCjer Sections 318{4), 69 and 351(2) reac! with Section 3(5) of !the BNSJ.
Later, Sect.ion 64f\2)0 fthe BNS.,I was also added with the permission of the learned Magistrate c!ur.ing in`-I./estigation, G©?`€=Ei\€Ti el{S ©F TFiE COUlk€SEL FOR THE PET!TieNEP`:
3. Sri K.S. Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behaiT-OT-Sri .A.rlJ.n .Showri, lea.I.neci eounsej for the PetiiLiOner, Submits-t'nat the Pe±itiojier-has been faiseiy impiicated in tthe present case` and has -not col-,-Ii-rli|l|led all-y-OfferICe I as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member 6f his family, and his I arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his dependen+|s. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that`{his Court may deem fit anc! proper for the grant of ar[ticipa{or\JJ bail. The Pe+|i+|ioner has got fixed abode.
4. The aiiegallier! clf a false f,rclmiSe C,i rr!arriage de,eS ne,i aitra_ct_ Section 318(4) of lthe BNS.,I as the De-facto ComplainantJs own slat;ments I-ail to rfzriszz:zr ``--\--t3 I _ "
7Dr.YLR, J Cr!_P_No.3919 of2025 Dated 15.09_2025 I .establish the essential ingredients of the offence. Similarly, invoking Section I 64(2)a-) of [the B`NS.,I relating to sexual intercourse by deceit requires proof of I fraudulent I-nten{ from the outset, which is absent. The Complainant, who Worked under the Petitionerls supervision, was previously warned for dereliction of' duty, an'd the petitioner had reported her to higher authorities.
This prior professionaI`conflict I'ndiCa{eS a POSSible motive for lodging a false complaint.
5. lt is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the PetI-tiO.ner and custodial deten{ionl and interrogation are not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the invastiga{ion and there is no likeII-hood Of absconding Or {amPering With the .I Prosecution eVI-denCe. Therefore, it I-S Prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Pe{l'tI-Oner/Accused No.1 in the interest ofjus{ice.
ARGUME NTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:
6- Per contra, Ms.P. AkhI-Ia Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation I-S at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a,grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation a nd mayevade the process of law.
;
7. The prosecution also apprehends that the petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial I/fffa3ZSXD ``.-ed ~`T. Dr.YLR, J crI.P.No.3919 of 20J25 Dated 15_09.2025 I investigation. ln view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk. to t.h.a progress of the investic!ation, it` is prayeci that the 'lnstant bail application be dismissecL 4Bg±±pglE_NiTS OF THE COUN-SE-L FOR_ R_ESPO_NLDEiviIT No=2i 8- sri N. Aswartha Narayana, th'e ieaiTleCi C6-ljrlsei for the resbor!cien+I No.2, hacl filec± elaborated written arguments and argued to dismiss the bail application. while reiterating the arguments advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, he s'ubmits that the petitioner is not entitled to the I c!iscretionary -relief of pre-arrest-bail, aS he m_ade false Promise Of-marriage I ar`id sex~Lia!l`yJ eXP]!OiteC! for Several times O\Jer Severe_i years an.d maCj_e her Preanant +I and he got it aborted intentionally. Initially, the petitioner agreed to mar_r\Ff C!e-faCtO COmP!ainant5 but later he POS+lPOneCi doing SO for One reason Or ot`her sa`;v,ing false pret`ext`s elf his father;a i!!-heai±h arld his sis+|erjs marriage. He #-I reatened the cie-facile COmPI~ainari± after filing 'GCimP-!a!rit|. lie !]3C!geC! ST/ST a fa ise case agair!s|l de-facto cc,rrF,Pfj!ainan.i. anCi he!r fa_rrli!\J' memlberS.
9- Tr[e iearneci counsel for +the 2nd resporldent further arg[JeCi t`hat Se.ct_io.n 69 of fthe BNS.,I squarely'applicable to the acts committed by the petitioner, so I he- is not entitled for discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. The de-facto I comp[ainarlt gave a statement which was recorded under Section 164 of lthe ru F.i.a,Fi3 wherein she specit-ica!iy a]!egec! +that the petitioner On keeping a false prnJmliSe Of marriaC!e Sexual.!\_,/ a,¥`P!Qiter!_ her Several times. The,petitioner even after filing of £lhe compiainant -wi+lh the police he llhreatened her with c!ire Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.3919 of 2O25 Dated 15.09.2025 COnSequenCeS including lodging a case under the provisions of the ST/ST Act i against the de-facto complainant and her elderly family members. The petitioner from very inceptI-On Of making a false Promise Of marriage had am intention not to marry her and sexually enjoyed her demandec! Rs.50,00,000/-
as dowry for him as his`father required it.
P
10. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has relied on the decisions of this Court in Gadapu Ravi Teja v. State of A.P.,1 wherein, a false promise of marriage was made, sexual intercourse occurred, vI-Ctim got Pregnancy and got it aborted, this Court dismissed the request for grant of pre-arrest bail.
ll. The petitioner has got filed statement of 'the de-facto complainant / recorded under section 164 of fthe Cr.P.C.,I contrary to the guidelines given by the HonJb!e Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Sivanna2 at para Nos.3, 5, 8, and 10.1 it is'held as und6r:
''3. We had further observed that there is a pressing need to introduce drastic amendments into CrPC in the nature of fast track procedure for Fast Track Courts when we considered just and appropriate to issue notice and called upon the Union of India to file its response as to why it should not take initiative and sincere steps for introducing necessary amendment int'o the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 involving trial for the charge of ''rape"
-by directing that all the witnesses who are examined in relation to the offence an.d incident of rape Cases should be straightaway produced preferably `before the Lady Judicial Magistrate-for recording th6ir statement to be kept in sealed cover and thereafter the same be treatecl as evidence at the stage of trial by producing the same in record in accordance vvith law which may be put to test by subjecting it to cross-examination. vVe were and are further of the view that the statement of victim should as far as POSSible be reOOrded Preferably before the Lady Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC skipping over the recording-of statemen{by the police under Section 161 CrPC to be kept in sealed cover and thereafterthe same be treated as evidence at the stage of trial which may b.a put to test by subjecting it to cross-examination.
1 cr!.p. N_a.7606 of 202.5 dated 07.08.2025 220148SCC913 1,a Dr.YLF3_, J Crl.P.No.3919 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025
5. What w? wishecl to emphasise is that the recording of evidence of the victim and other witnesses multiple times ought to be put to an end which is the primary reason for delay of the trial. -We are of`the view that if the evidence is recordecj for the first |Lime itself before the Juciiciai -Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC and i_he same be kept in sealecl cover to be produced and treated as deposition of the witnesses and hence admissible at i.he st.age of i.rial with liberty to the c!efence i.o cross-ex`amine the.m `.A,lith further liberty to the accusecl to leacl his defence witness and other eviderce with a right to cross-examination by the prosecution, it can surely c,uf. s!no.rf. fend curt.ail the plot.racted trial if it is int.ro.c!uced `at least for t`ria! of rape cases which is bound to redLJCe the duration Of trial and thus offer a speedy remedy by way of a fast track procedl!re / to thle Fast Track Court to resort to.
8. We, thereafter, appointed the learned Senior Counsel Mr Shekhar Naphade and Mr U.U. Lalit, who appeared and addressed this Court. The learned Senior Advocate Mr Shekhar INaphade agreed wit_h the s,_!ggestion.s given by this Court that the statement of the Victim of rape and gang rape may be and shcjLjld be recorded urider Section 164 CrPC'whiph shoulcj be placed on recorcI, treated as evidence of the victim and may later be relied upon as evidence and\then the accused may be gilven a ;hance to cross- examirle the prrosec'ution versi'on and the evidence recorded at the instance . of the viICtim. The learlned Serfior eounseI' Mr Shlekhar ,Naphade vvas good enough io give IJS a brief note in this raga.rC}"_ 10.1. Upon receipt of information relating to the commission of offence of - rape, the investigating officer shall make immediate steps to take the victim to ar!\jl Met_rc,po!!{an/prefers.b!\y J!_!dilc-!a`! Magi.cst`rat_a for i_he rnL!'rPOSe Of recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC. A copy of the statement under Section 164 CrPC should be handed over to the investigating officer im,mediately with a specific direc;tiorl that th,e COnte,ntS Of Such statem,eat u!r!rqer section .164 C;PC should -rlOt. be C!.iSC!rCISed tO any Pe.rsO.n! ti!!, C.hara= . sh6et/report u-nder section 173 CrPC is fiieci".
123 The iCDS peoDie Ouah€ E-u not tO have f!JrniSheC! the informs.ti'On in bet_\g^gJeerl +Lhe PctitiOner and the de-T-acto complaI'nant tO the media. The petitioner and other accusec! have been purposefully 'avoiding the process of the / investigation for more than four months. The accused No.2 who is the brother I of the petI-tiOner/accused No.1 is,a practicing advocate at the instance of whom |lhe petitioner adoptirlg dialectic |LaCtiCS tO avoid the Process Of law. The version of the petit!'oner has been from forum to forum 6onvenientiy suiting to his se.lfish requirements. .A. person who .has not approa.chec! this a,oIJrt With CIean Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.3919 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 hands I'S not entitled for grant of discretionary relief and urged to dismiss the petition.
13. Thougr'tful consideration is bestowed c,n the arguments ac]vanced by the learned Counsel for both slides. I have Perused the entire record.
POINT FORC ONSIDERATI ON
14. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:
I ££Whether the.petitioner is entitled for grant of pro-arrest bail?9T I ANALYSIS
15. In Jah,-r y. Sfafe of I/ffar prat,esh3 a learned single Judge of the High Court ofAIIahabad a{ para Nos.8 to ll held as under:
?: .!n_S_h:r!kpnt upadhyay and 'others vs state of Bihar and another, 2024 lNSC 202-has obseireci as under
"1.?- The _relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding inqividuaI _rights: While it serve; as a crucial tool to privent trfe r!isuse of the power of arrest and protects -Innocent individuals frpT Par?ssment, it also presents -challenges in maintaining a qel'IPate _bPIance betvveen ind-IVidual rights~ and the interests of j!slice. The i_ight rope we must walk-lies in striking a balance Pe,tweer .s_pfpguarding individual r-IghtS and rcticting Publ-IC interest. _W.hile the right to liberty an6 presumption of, i;ndcence ?,re vi.tal, thp court mL,St also,consider the grirVity Of the Offence, i_he impact on society, aird the need -for i fair and fre6 .ipves_tig9tiOn: The cour±'s discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each in-dividrual case becomes c_rucial to ensure a just outcome." l 9_-_Th.p .poye! of anticipatory bail is somewhat extriordinary in character aI!P_ if is tc!.be e_xe_r_cised dnly in exceptional cases where'the person is ` ± falsely implicated. -Though jn inany cas6s it was held that bail is s=id to`be a r|!_lp, it,cannot, by any stretch of iinagination, 'be said that anticipatoly bail is the rule.
1_0_._ The pour±.Dyes duty tr3at justice iS done tO all the parties (i,e accused, Prose.?.ut:i.On, _informant, cormplainant and victim). The' citizens in terms df conptit.u{ional. m_andat.e are' required t6 ab-id-; -by ia;.---irrier; ;r-a;tis material and allegation against an accused, offence is made out, the 32024 AHC 135775'(NeutracCitation) i2 Dr.YLR,`y J Crl.P.No.3919 of 2025 Dated 15_09.2025 accused is required to show exceptional circumstances warranting the Protection of liberty. No circumstances have been shown by applicant(s) to demonstrate that personal liberty of accused in the facts and .circlJmstanlC;eS o of the ca.se is requi,-ed to be protected. In the facts and circumstances of the case: the gran+L Of antiCiPatOry bail wouldl lead to misca.rriage of justice. ll- The court i`s required to exercise jurisdiction of anticipatory bail on SOL],ncl juciiciaI' Pri,nCiPleS. The cow,rf_ sho'uld be slow i.o grant ar!ticipatorv bail tI9_9D_accluSed \.^lhO does__not abide bV law and commits an Offence_. in the Present case, it'is not shown by the applicant(s) that the prosecution or co_mpl'ainarilt has falsely `imPliCated the applicant(S). One r_`a`r]nof lose sigh!LL of the fact that unwarranted protection to an accused has adverse effect on the peace and tranquillity of society at large and effects mlaintenlalnCe C]f law and order in the society. The jurisdiction of anticipatory bail permits the accused to be not produced before the ordinary jurisdictional .court although ordinary jurisdictional court at grass root level have greater experience and eXPC>s'ure `v^vlith regard i.o situation of rrlainter!ance of jaw ar].cj orcjer a_i ike local place. The process of.anticipatory..`~baiI. permits ~considerati.Qn .9f anLLiCipatory bail by Session Court or High Coiurt and nlct by Magistrate Col_I_rts. Facts and circulmStanCe Of eec_h Ca_Se iS tO be examined at the time . of considerat_ion of anticipatory bail". - ' a
16. in Fbamarthi chaitanyeswar Ganesh ¥. S±a±e ef ±EE!dfeFa Pradesh4 a I a leamed Single Judge of this Court, in the decision relied on by the learned I counsel for the 2nd respor!dent5 at Pars Nos.28 anc! 29 heic! as under.
'''28--_ The _specific: overt acts aiiegecj in the first informal.ion. report a.S We]!' aS ir}-i-he sta§.eirTi]ieii-ill ,JC)i -\jiC{iiTil re,CC,rdeC! by PIOi.ice C!u!ring in`ylestigatiOn are t`!n.a petit=Eorler \.lvas after i.he victim saying that he loves and intending to marry her and made a promise marry: lt happened in the year 20®20;~The pe{it3:Orler used tO Visit the ih-C,use ,C,i Victim and developed aCqL!a.inta..rlCe also with the paren|LS Of thle Victim; Therefore, the victim beiievecl the premlise c,f the pet.it'ioner that he would inarry her; Hen,ce, continlued the friehdship wit,h the E3etitiOner~, \y^,I,hi.Ie so, i.a i.he mo.nth of JIu!y 2021, one day the'victim `v'isited the fI'at-C,i ihle PetitiOnler, He `was alone in {h.a flat: The petitior1.er SeXL±ally assaulted her saying that he will marry her; The vict.im believed him- The petitioner continued the friendship with the victim Promising that he \^/ill marry her, after com.pleting the education; Later, after completion of educ>ation, the petitioner went to vijayawada, promising that Pe will speak with his parents about marriage.
I "---2s9:..Therefore, when the above aIIegatibns are -considered on their face value, prima facie i.hey shclw that victim consented for the re`lationship with the petitiorller aS Sh,e Sincerely bel,ie`y'ed his promises to ma.r.ry, from incei3tiOn till he left for Vijayawa;da, as |Lruthfui and he mlarry hlei-. lt lmList be remembered that a`t re!e\.,ant po.i.nt both were co-students in thle college alnc] became good friends. Therefore, no reason for the girl to suspect his bona- fidess at that time. In fact, it is the contention of the petitioner that he could 4MANU-/AP/i- 626/2024 e---
13Dr.YLR, J Crl_P.No.3919 of 2025 Dated 15.09_2025 P?i marry rler due to subsequent unforeseen events which are not under hni:+::?ff,ro,I. Truth of these -allegations cahno{ -i;-gi-;;-i;i-; i;--; "q';-a-s'h petition".
17. ln Yeclla Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh5 a dectls'lon relied on by the learn.ed counsel for the 2nd respondent, at para No.ll and 12 held as under--
"L]_1_,,-,ln,!his_co.n.nection reference may be made to the amendment made in thh^e^l nLd!9:_ Eyi!epce 4ct._ Sect_ion ll iA was -i;i;;Ju-Sid -i;i-{i-i--p'ii:;ui;itii; hrss^be.e_n_:aise? ,a.s to the absence of iJ;:i;i-I:; -C-ek=-i-n -iisSr=vC-u#i'::r:'i;r rape. Section 114A reads as under:
Section `114A~Presumption als to the absence of cr:p;^e: e!;ntd,i5:r cC;art_u;:en (Pa;pe_Eat_:Os:ibfOorr rcalPaeu-::l8f oPrrOc; :Cuust:O(nd )fOorr Pla.!se !e) or clause (g) of sub-'s6ction (2) oi Section 376 `J{ti-e l^n~d!a_a_ _p_pral code. (4i_of 1860), where Six.ual inter66L;rS5 i;`tire accused is proved and the question is whither it-was withodt the c_3r:enf 9f the _woman alleged to have been ;aped and she StLa_tens_in the ,he.r Court shall e.yidence presurme befor6 that the court she did that she did not cdns-erit, not consent.
I+fhs^:x::€l..i_a_terc.purse fias been committed by the accused and if it is proved t!?:i_I i_i Was Yithout `the consent of the p-r6:iivi{;;-i;i :i;; -:I':;;sr'i; 'h-:r ?::d+en^cLe_ P9,!9re pot tlh^ant;_,S^!.:_:di.d_ th.a court th at she 3OrPent_ did nat conse-;i, Presympt-IO; ira--c;;ri
-hi:---iJ;i; Sir-drlrir::;;'e
-i-ir;6J;c-:J-yi-{i;e ll:s^i!a^t_ur_e_ :,n. _tpp Eviqence Act loolk;;g-t; --itr;iit-its -';iJrfi;itigd ~aJga;;:i ¥?Te_P_ a_nd sh.p_an.! d.id_.in nottPe .instant give case conserlt tO as tr;eper the statement accused of pw, =t iir; ir;s{ she ri:sisted ;;Sti-;:e--i;;-a--i;e c_oT_I.it:ed the .rape on her. The accused gave her assur=nci-{h-all-h= ;o-;id T^a:%~h^er_,SP?lPorfi.nued became to did clear that the accused sa_titty his lL;St not vii5h till she becaini -p;iih;;i-;n-i :It i6 in-;rrf-rfir.
1_?-,.lp. tp?. present case in view of the facts as mentioned above we are s^at`i,s_fj.:!lt_h_at the cqn.spnt wh ich had been obtaihed -i;-i-i; ic-c~u-s6-d ;;s-; i;i ?hv^o!u_n_i.=_y the _pnemarry accused wquld yfiich her-but was given by is-;off thiJs her under mis'ci-irii;riti-;;-oi f=-c{ {i1-it a-;6;;;fit:I;i:if;.
I
18. ln Gadapu Ravi Teja v. State of Andh-ra Pradesh6 a learned s-lngle Judge of {hl-s court, a decision relied on by the respond6nt No.2, at para No.7 held as under.-
\r.
5MANU/SC/8531/2006 6crl.p.No.7606 of 2025 dated o7.08.202 5 14 Dr.YLR, yJ crl.p.No.3919 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 "7---As seen from the record, the Petitioner-iS aged about 31 years_anq the d_e_ facto complainanVrespondent No.2 is age.d abort _26 years. ._Both are.. fully growns doth are who;king and they ar? educated. Because qf love ard affec`ii;a i; bet.\.,hvleen i.hem, I_i,ey met bhysicaI.iy o.a _severeI ,pccasio_rs-LL_at|£_r,_ resE]onde.a.1L No.2 got pregnchCy. Wh,en she ipfOrrneq i.he. S?ame tO the peiiti:;ii;,-iir5--i=t.iiidn.±r _stugge.ited her to_ get it apprfed..and gave soTS| tab''ets. .i.s the'res.DOndent ,;d6.2 conISum,eC! those tLablets, the pregrla_ncy get aborted. Even th-ough, the respond.eat No.2 requesteq. the P.etiiiC!re: ,tP mariv -her, the petiti-oirer did nch_ oblige her request .Pn thP Pr_e}_er_i ±I:fi!¥st_ motiei a;a sister cia i-lot agree formarriage. As meat.ionenq sluP!.a in Byft.epluhri RahriI Patnaik's case, rofied On by i_he learned counsel for the pe.tit.i.oner, there was no instance of the victim therein goLL Pregnancy and it. W_SIS aborted at the instance of the petitioner therein. As rightly pointed oLlt by the. lea_r,ri-e-d -,A`ssista.nt Public` P-rosecutor, the facts and ,CirCPmst.arCPS Of' Mai4if£ri 'ii`-tiiril-'iath=i-ir-'S case and trie instant case are dist_inguishable. 9n fac>t:--i;,d th,e ratio -laid do`w'n by rCo-ordinal.e Benc!n of this Pourf qanPPt be foIIi;gJ, -;: {ii;e--are no me'rits in this criminal petition for grant of Pre- arrest bail to the petitioner.
419` i-n Gttdiba,nda Ka.r€eek -`€l. State of A__nc!hra Pradesh7 a leamed S®lngle
-JtJCjge Of +this Court, at pare :P\jo.5 heici as tJ.n.Cj.er: ' I 5;i: e#k.£n:gr,a sc£i!m:fn.a:# ¥ gut-ee::iu=:I.O;nat::er:: :udrsgeOc:oS:m SttheOd;bt¥f adtletch_:_£ffJ:; ~ar^eC_aa^:_: ^:~fn^ th-=i``5;%gt:;; 'i;;--Ic:;; ;;i-fi;;i=di --Causing Simple _ihurf an.d miSCerria.ge
-wi-ch36-;i-frirr consent, criminal intilmidation and insulting her.by .na.ming Per ` casii;i.-As seen front the COnltentS Of the F!R`, A`1, b-y p!-'omising i_O marir!y.-I .fLhie de iiiri6 c`omp!ai!n_ant, h_a.a physical contact Wit.h her Several time.S.. `yV.h,e.nI ?'h=-i6-came spregnah|L, -Al in+i-reduced his ?i-'C>ther P2, `w':ho .ga`ye,.ta_b,i=,+:?~:? j]er. --irrdsting the-words of Al that he vypuid n]arry Per,,s!nf fLC]Of _iP=.i,pP!et^s:
Leie;, -i;i; -,:r6gnancy was removed. whf3.a Sh,.e aSkeq Al i? T_a_r:ry,_h:=r, TAL1:
abJ:e-d-h6r i-a., filth`; language by i.o'uching hl?r ca-st_e apd beat. h^er..TP?1 o_i*st;;e:-alleged a'gainst AAT al-i ver,v' gra`v'e_ in ..natu!re. L?ameld _€-=si_stf.:i_, pL;i;ii-;-Pr-istatdru-{o; vSUbmitted that th6 i-nvestigation 'IS urider Progress and sc>_rae mo.re wit.ness6.s a.re to be examined".
20- vvhile citing the abov± reasons a !eamed Single Juc!ge `otthis Court in Kapfeefa supra declined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner I_herein.
21, I SE~i K.S. Murthy-, |lhe leamed Serliof Counsel appearing On. behalf Of Sri I A`Arun -SrT]o`w'ril iearrled COunSei for |lhe Petit`iOn.er reiieC! On the CieCiSiOn Of the _---i -` p?-
`* (--f--
7crl.p.No.=166 of 2025 dated 27.03.2025 15 Dr.YLR, J CrI.P.No.3919 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 HonJbie Apex CoLIr{ I-n Amol Bhagwam Nehul v. State oF Maharashtra8 wherein a{ pare No.9 it I-S held as under.I ''?...ln.our:considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false
-r-v\_:__ I___ ___ _ PrOTiSe tO marry to begin with. A_c_onsens;aI turnin SOur Or artners becomin a_istant cannot be a r_9_u_nCI for invokin criminal m_achine of the Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of sucri a heinous offence. this court ltnerr^m_e!^^it_ P^a:_tip,e..lard_a_,f_pl_ly3 to ,treat ,aga^in. werned ei;ch -breath against off-6-roini:5-tro' {h; -i;is;s; -i;;;; 'v:s-';
-;; {i: i'i;;;:iy;nS: '':nif';;=e
-rf:i
Promise and prosecute a person for an offenge unJ;r :6ci-iof;-57iTp-c''.
22. In Ktma/ ChaffeHJ'ee V. Sfafe of West BengaP the HonJble Supreme Court held as under.-
",ys_h_a_y_p he,arq. lea_rned counsel for the parties at length. Learned ?A:^u,:,srde!3~PP^e£Lri_nlgl,for the State_ has relied upon the d;I-I;iiiJn-8i -I-R:;6-I i;;d ¥1P,fig _argue that fhe consent srf!l_b_e:ua^JraLPP.1l_I given by the ini-no;
a Our?.ons'I-de_red 6i-IriI;;,;: --iS ;;-;;;::ni'a;`d-Ftit-w-o|;;d
-;;err-dr;ii;;I;;;i ' 'iJ;g c^oL:P.if:=P. by_ the .eppellant when the prdsecutri; -w;as aa --;i;;r: -thir-; -:s a_b_3?I_u_teI,y nc!. .evidehce, and clefiniiel;--;; -i;-r5`n:;;-e-vid:;;:I ;;tv; vti:e p^rrords^erc+u^tio_a:,!t_ is c:nly an allegption in the FIR after more than-63 -;€ar;, ill ?A:d^e^r t^o^_m£E|p_gut,,i Nap coperrl.itted case back three years' ur;derwhen the po-cso-ddt:
she 'was -th-ai-:uiir'i;-aclt-di a minor. -Sh-a a'lsb -r£;6 c_at^erg:pr!c^a!l.I I:_t=teS thet-s.P.e con sented to the act -== ihire ;a-s -i p-;gill:;;f marriage by the appellant''.
23- The Hon'ble Apex Court -ln Maim Ahmed v. State of (NOT) of Delhi10 at Para No.21 and 22 it I-s held as under:
":I,3_1---TIb±d_ on behalf of the [52SPOndentS iS that iven her a_OnSent for Sexual under the lion lot tuI9 accused iven a false romise to marl h`er and ssulbSeg uentI hpprdid nc,i marr` and therefore such_consent_yvas no cs:e:ffcsg:rone#n :n3e#bft£tgwee#nOf tth#vseI :gf¥Scase fell under Clause Secondly of pertinent to note _that there is a romise and_committing breach of rom ise a_ccused. Case of false romise the accused ri ht from the be vyould not h_ave an intention to marl rosecutrix and w4ould have cheated or deceited the prosecutrix bv qivinq a false Promise tO her onl witth `a view to his lust vyhereas in case of breach of romise Cannot that the accused mi romise with all seriousness and subse MAN U/SC/0787/2025 SpI Leave petition (crl.) No.76ro4Tui 2025 10t2o23J SCC -6rilih'e\ -s|6J816 cgr-]J=-=.{'`` 16 Dr.YLR,.J Crl.P.No.3919 of 2025
i)ated 15.09.2025 ebanne?ifnao§o¥Eitle_a§;s±±::±:§fi€f±±!:oad±±d#¥gf]sg;::DaO;gofen±i:Se:§d:£;£e£e±heio±c£i:€:bc!E;esa£fii#£¥fs£±!±f§ie±r^n^ 'naving thlree chlilc]ren, coi]!c] a,Ot be SaiCI to ha`,le act.ed unde.r i_Pe a!I9g_ed.-
false---promise given. by the aPPeIIant or undpr_the. priSCF!.I.1C?.PtiOn Of.faCf
-ir;-;-i;a-i;I;ediI`y,--st,hi while-giving Con,tiniued trfe constent tO have+.OSeXua_I ha\yle Sue.h. ;?!at.iPnShiPw.i.l.h r`el_ati_onsfti.p Wilh_.i.he .hI!m eP=PeIIpTt.
_at ieaS.+I :Pr about five -jeers i.ill she gave complaint iP tfte year 201F. Even. if the allegations-made by her in her deposition befOIe th_? Cod,rf, ere te.kPn Pn thefrr face value, trfen also to construe Such allegations aS "rep_e''.by the appe!!a.nt, would be stretching the Case too far.__The prosecutri¥ being al in£rried \NOmarl and the mother Of three Children was matured and I inltel!igen+. elnOugh tO underSt.and the Significance anP the co_nsequE,plces. of the rfioral or irrirmoral quality of act she was COnSenting tO. Eve.n_ otheryi?p, if her entire concjuc{ during i.he coLirSe C,i Such reiatiO,nShiP _With_ the uti;::ucufii;ir:'nvii;jrii:i;;'a accused, is ciose!y .seen,';i=#Ii;ihi`b--wii{h it_ appea.rs that the aCCuSe'd, she had .fPr .vyhOm.
.betrayf3d_ Sfre h,Pd`
her fiuSbaqd end.
developed iikin-g for `irim. she had gone to_ stay with. P!m .g.uring. i.Pe s'ubsistence of -her marriage with h.er h'usbarlc!., to live a better li_fe vyith the accLiSed. Ti!! `{.he tim,a .sg3-a `¥^ylaS imPregrlated .b\Jl ihe faCCuSeC! fin thle yea.r 2011, dad she gave birth tO a mlale child through the _Ioip._of i.he €ccused] she -ciid not halve any complain+L against the accused_?f he. deaVi.ng. g.iV€n
-false promliSe |LO m,irry h€r Or h,aVing Ch.e_at.ed _.her. -SPe. fa!sQ .Yis!tPd the nativ6 _DIace I;-ri=r'.;;ii of the
-wi=.ri acdbseCI ha\.ling in i_healso, chi!dre,.a \year still 2012 she and continue_d came to know to that livehe_ WeS w.itfi .the a.ccused
-di-\.ic,.rc;eat.from zanof.her _ire.m.ises wit_bout her hI_i-.S.ba_r!d by mutlualany grievanc;e.
consent. She
in 2014, even obtained
.leaving he_I three
chi!c!ren with her husband. it ivas only in t'nel-year 2015 when, sorri,e disputf3S must have taken place between them, that she file_d th_a p[ese_n{ _c_Om_P!a.int. The ac,cused i;ri iris fL!rtlher .Statement_ reCOra!ed under Section 313CrPC hpcj stated that she haci filed the complaint as hle refuSeC! tO fulfil her C!emand tO 'of'f.he pay cads, amount.
her huge it cou.Id nothavi-a_g_ Thus, be said regard by anytq stretch Of and.
tPe. fac,ts. in!aginat_iC!n fh.e.i i,Pe cir,?umS,€L_a_,TcL£_S_ lappellant under prosecutrix -hlad trie misconception given her consent9f fact,.the _ff,r .SOsex`.ua.I aS~to Ppld !h_e_.a_p_p.pIIant guilty r.e.I?,tionship..`y!tLh___i_I,P df|having committed rape within the meaning of Section 375IPC".
2.4. ln Bhawar Singh v. State of Madhya Pro_desh" the ®Hon'ble Apex Cola rt set aside the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh rejecting the rea+i+est for grant OTr P.re-arrest. ba.i_i tO 4lhe peti|lioner therein] and granted Pre-
11@ss LP (CrI.)No.3475 of 262r5=£ I 17 Dr.YLR, J Cri.P.No.3919 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 arrest baI'I to the petitioner for the offence punishable lmder Section 69 of tthe BNS].
25. Similarly, the Honjble Apex Court in Kt,#a/ Crfeafgerfjee case sL,Pro also I-n the sl'milar facts and circums,lances of the case, granted the relief of quashing the proceedings. ,
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decis,ions held that promise to i marriage and subsequent physical relationship between the two with consent would not amount to rape.
27. ln Pr,-th,'v,-ra/-an v. sfafe12 at para Nos.6 and 7 I-I iS held as under:
t'r£€ I afihoinssc¥oeurrfe gsatsa:ilghee3nbdasaedai:nregterroatmeidsethtaot moan: bi:cwaI#Sne6tP=±::i:::i t5£±€P£_. For tPp .pffpnc_p of !drp5ar6-6 attracted, the fbIIoir;ira conditions a_e~:_d,_I?_be satisfied : first_, the accused promised to marry th€ prosecutrix s|pI,2,Iy_i_o se.c.ure coflsept for sexual relatibns without havin'g anylintention of f!l_filljng said prorp'I?e from the Very beginning; second, tri:at {f;e i;6s66ut;ix g£?I_e_ Per cpnse!t for.sexual relations -by bofng directly influen;ed by such f.alsTe,_PrPm!Se.Ofmar!iage. _ .
7=#nTffiQ±;rfi;fe:S±±nr+i;t±±£f#feo±_:Fin/ ie:;ife CCST_elf?,`be rPgiPtereC!.. .Under these circumstances, letting t'he appellant f3PP_ trial wppld be npthing short of an abuse of th; pro-ceuss--drf tF;'5I-6druri. This cannot be permitted''.
28. ln Pramod suryabhan pawar v. state of lvlaharashtra+3 at pare Nos,12,18, and 21 it is held under:
"!_2:.,_TPiS C?uri has repeatedly held that consent with respect to section 3_75 IPC involves _an active und6rstanding of the circumst;n=e;,-acti=;;a;nd c9nSequenCeS Of the Proposed act. An individual who makes a reasoned choice to act after evaluating various alternative actions (or inactio;) -i: irill 1132i20o2159 ; 9C C; coon L610n8e gC€.9 6 \_--t*|1 18 Dr.YLRI.J ¥ Crl.P.No.3919 of 2025 Dated 15.09_2025 as the various possible consequences flowing from sLICh action Or inaction, consents to such action.
18. To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the {'con`Se.nl" of a woman with resDeCt tO Section 375 must involve an active ancl reasonled cleliberation towlards the proposed act. To establish \.A.lhet.her i.he ''con.sent" wa.s vitiated _by_ _a__"misconceDtiOn Of fact" _a.r!S!nS!QJ±± o_i a promise |LO rir]ariV, two PrCjPOSiti_f}_n,S m,lust be estab!iSheC!. T.he prorrliSe of marriage must hal.le ±been a fa_lse Promise, a-IVen -ln bad faith and With nO intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself m'L]st be Of immediate lrelevance, or bear a direct nexu.s to the woma_n±s decision to engage in the sexual act.
21. The allegations in the FiR do not on F¢eir fate in,dicate thlat the `PrOmiSe by the appellant was false, or that th€ complainant engaged in sexual relations on the basis of this promise. There is no allegation in the FIR that when the_appellant promised to marry the complainant, it was done in bad faith or `v^vlith +the ir1{entiOn i.a deceive her. The appeijant_i.s ff_3iiure in 2016 io fulfil his promise made in 2008 cannot be construed to mean the Promise itself Was The allegations in the FIR indicate ±Lhlat.the CO,mPiaii3alnt Was alwlare i.hat there existed obstacles to marrying the appellant since 2008, and that she and the-a_ppeIIarft continued to engage in sexual relations long after their getting married I-IaCi beCOmle a disputed ,matter. Everi thereafter, the ccmplaina,nt travej!ec! to visit and reside ,with the aPPe!lant ¢at his pcstir;,gs arid a!!c`v^,v'ec! hirr1 {r!. Sr`iJerlC! his \r^vleek`eri!C!S at. h,er reSiC!enCe_ T!h_a allegations in the FIR belie the case that she was deceived by the appe!!anit's pro!rriise of lm,arriage. Therefore, e\.len if the facts sat out in the c;olmPiailnant'S Stateme,ntS a`re accepted iir3 tctLa!it`yl, nC CffeinCe lunder Sect_iQr! 375 !PC has occ;urred''. , 9Q prE ri ln. iyiaheshv^,ra.r Tigga v. SrEa€e of J_ha_i_k__ha_nLal4 all Pare Ncjs.AIG., A-l-2= A-,-33 14, and 18 lit is heicj as :ti'ncier:
" 10...Th,a appeilarilf` iu`ueiori.gad tc] the Sc!hed'ulerid Tribe \,A,ylhi!e the Pr,A_,.SeC]uf`riX` bet,ongeci io the Christian coiTllmunliLLy. They professeci ciifferen{ religious beliefs in a traditional society. They both resided in the same Village Basjadi anrd \.A.le.re k`now.a to each -cther.- The nature and manner of allegations, coupled with the letters exchanged between them, marked\ aS exhibits during theiriaI, make it apparent that their love for each other grew and matured over a sufficient period of time. They were both smitten by each other and passions of youth ruled over their minds and emotions. The physical r;Iations that f6llowed was not isolated or sporadic in nature, but regular over the years. The prosecutrix had eve.n gone and resided.in the house of the appellant. Jn our opinion, the clelay of foLlr years in lodgement of the FIR, at an opportune time of Seven days Prior tO the aPPe!Iant so!emnising his m,arriage wit_h anot_'ner girl, on |Lhle Pretext Of a Promise tO ii]i irg-s;cou{;ii ;=i:e=-:erio-us -d;;b{s -abiJut the i;uth and Ver=City of the aiiegations ieveliecj by i-ne `prosecutrix. The entire genesis .c,i i-hle case is in, ` serioluS C]Oubt in Vie.W Of the admission Of the PrOSeCuttiX in C;rose- examinaticJn that nO-irICiden-i-had OCCurred On 9-4-1999.--
e 14(2020) 10 SCC 108 19 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.3919 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 a 1.2. The prosecutrix acknowledged that an engagement ceremony had also been performed. she further deposed that-the marriage betvieen them could _not be solemnised because they belonged to d~Ifferent religions. She was therefore conscious of this obstacle all along, even while she continued to establish physical relations with the appellant. lf the appellant had ma.fried her, she would not hate lodged the case. she de-nied having written. any letters to the appeliant, ofontrary to the evidence placed ofn reco.rd by the defence. The amorous language used by both in-'the letters e¥cPenged reflect that the appellant was serious about the relationship desiring to_culminate the same into marriage. But unfqrfunately for societ-al reasons, _tPe marriage could not materialise as they belonged to different communities. i
13. .The rue_stion for our consideration is wheth.er the prosecutrix consented i.p the physical relationship under any misconceptiori ,of fact with regard to i_he p_romise of marriage by the app6llant or was her consent bas5d on a f.ra,udu.Iept. pliSrePreSenta{iOn Of--marriage Which the aPPellant never intenqedJ tO k_dep since the very inception -of the relationship.- if we reach the ?.pnclusio.n that_ he intentionaliy made a fraudulent misre-presentation from thp,very.i.ncep_lion and the prosecutrix gave her consent o®n a miscc;nception of f,act, th.p_offence of rape under section 375 lPC is clearly made out. lt is n?i, p.oss!qle to hold in the natLlre Of evidence On record that the aPPellant o^bta!red_h_er_c_onsent at the inception by putting her under any fea'r.-under Sectiop .90 I_PC a consent given-under idar of frnjury is not a ;onsent in the eye of,tPe lavy.. ln the facts of the present cas6, vi,e are not persuaded to ap,cept _th?_ solitary statement of the prosecutrix that at the tiine of the first aJIlpg,?d pffe_nce .her _consent was obtained under fear of injury.
14. Under Spcti_on 90 lPC, a cons`ent given uncler a misc6n6eption of fact is no c?ns.ent jp.the eye of the law.'B1±±fhe misconception Of fa-Ct has tO be in €±±:±:±±±±:±±±£±±±±=±::f=±:a oarna:i ocna #hnaott tbhee csoD:esaedntObVve wf=ira=====;i:=====+======:=g±%§±E£S£!f}±§±=gi3£FESE=f3!F£mmea trhae*irepr:Oe#I die6ubD##Wak#: dCuOeD±dC::_bus adjji_ r3t:osnitirite . action not to rotest. The prosecutrix in her letters to the appeIIant also T_entiPns thef there vyould often be quarrels at her home w'ith her family rP3mPp.rs vyith regard to the relationsh-ip, and beatings given to her. 1?. We have given our thoughtfdi considerat-io; to the facts and ?i_rcumstan?.es.of the present caste and are of the considered opinion that the appellart_ did not `make any false promise or 'intentional r?_iprpprespnt.atipn of marriage leading to establishment of physical r_e,I_a_i,ion.ship. befwpen the parti-es. TIbfe Dr-OSeCutriX -Was herself awa're 'of the oebpsgt£ €Iee% e,Innt tcheergmroe#ayt i #assh ia I s :fE si6i -irorff£offleer=nnt breel li gg{?hit :i -#:-esfoSi I e£ na I o_b,st?.cles,'.would pe -overcome, but unfortunately d-irie;6;i6S -=is5 -a;;:6 YPLPth?r.thP .rla.rr!Pge Was tO SPlemniSed in the 6hurch or in a temple and ultimately failed. It is not possible to hold on the evidence available'that the appellant. ,rigPt_frorr _the inception .did not-intend to marry the .prosecutrix ?_yPr,.and her frauduy3ntly misrepresented only -in order to -establish physical relatip.n vyitP he_r. The proseciJtriX in her li3tterS acknowledged 'th=t the appeIIant's family was always vely nice to her'.
€-~ I € 20 Dr.YLR, J I I-Cri.P.No.3919 of 2025
Dated 15_09_2025
30. Following are the relevant dates and events concerning the petitioner and t`he and lrespon.den.t`:
The petitioner, agecI- about 33 years, belongs to the Scheduled Caste (.Ma!a) commLlnit\J' anC! iS elm,P!OyeC! a.S. a_n Assistant Engirieer, Gunthakai Municipal Office. The 2nd respondent, agea' about 29 years, belongs to t!-[e Backward class (Go!la) comhauni|ly and is working as Secretary, Ward I Ameni+lies, Mukkidipeta, Hip,dupur Municipal Office. As per the averments in the-~FIR-ahc! 6th-a-I c!6cu_`~m-eats, it appears that in December-2019-,I the--petitioner--~ ~ -`~---I--
proposec! to the 2nd respondent, but she rejected it. In-February 2020; he again made a similar proposal. !n Ma`y' 2020, cl!uiring the iockc!o\vA,n PeriOC!, While erl inspection at Aj'ijia Urdu Primary School, the first sexual intercourse took place bet_ween the petitioner and the 2nd respomdent. This physical relationship continued ori se-`v'-era! cjccasi|-;hs EJn+lil Ju-ne 2024.
3i. The petitioner was also preparing for £lh-!e iJPSG e3€aiffilEinatiOilS. iri i?`u-g'u[St I 2022, he approached the parents of the 2nd respclnden{ regarding marriagej I b-ui her mother askec! i-lil-Tl tO `brir]g his Paren+lS {O discuss +the al,llianCe. !ni+`ia!!\J', on 06.o3.2025, an FIR vI'aS registered against the Petitioner and Others-for offenses unde,`' Sections 318(4), 69, anc! 351 of 'the BNS'. Later, on 07.03_2025, Section 64(2)(i) of lthe BNS.,I `,^lJaS also addeCL While +.heir re!at`iLT±nship \,A,as _slJb.SiSt.ing, i.he Peti|liOner -gifteCi I jeWe!!ery' +lO the 2nd Ir£ennEhrir-n+ u`,I-`~ a lull tt,,The\y; also hac! in+LerCOurSe Or} Se\`.J-era! t|r-r-a-einnS a_i_ d!fferer!t locations, including private re;idem_ces of their known persons.
t.`qu r- E~I
21
I cr! p.No.391gr;¥L252:
Dated 15.09.2025
32, On 04,03.2025, a counselll-ng session between the petitioner and the 2nd
respondent was conducted, but i{ failed. No proof or specific averments were a made by the 2nd respondent regarding the exact month or year of pregnancy, thedate-`ofabortion, orthepillsallegedlyused. i I
33. As observed above, both the petitioner-and the 2nd respondent are educated and sufficI'ently matured individuals who have been working in government establishments for a quite long tI'me. Their physical relationship continued over a period of more than three years at various places.
a
34. The Honjble Apex Court in Pr,-th,-v,-ra/-am supra observed that the Supreme court has repeatedly held that merely because physical relations were established on a promise to marry it would not, by I-tself, amount to rape.
In the present case also, the relationship between the petitioner a~nd respondent No.2 appears to have been consensuaj. It does not emerge from i the record that the I'nl'tial Promise allegedly made by the petitioner to marry respondent No.2 was false from the very beginning. The petitioner and respondent No.2 belong to two dI-fferent communities. Respondent No.2 herself stated in her complaint that I.he petitioner postponed the marriage once due to his fatherJs ill health and on another occasion due to his sister's marriage. There is no allegation in the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 specifying the date on which the petI-{iOner Promised tO marry her, nor iS there any assertion that the promise was made inl bac! faith or with an intention to deceive her. -
it
- REP i ®==-_.trce|=.
t 9?
Dr.YLR]^`J i
Cri.P.No.3919 of 2025
Dated 15_09.2025
35- Furthermore, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amo/ Bhagawan IVeht,/ sL,Pta
obser\./ec!. that a. consensua! relationship that later turns sour, or partners s-ubsequentiy becoming distant, cannot by itself justify- inl-v-okirlg tr,e crimirlai machinery of the state. The al'egec! misconception of-i-act of the Petitioner. has SPread over a period ot-three -years.
36, considering the ratio lay down by the HonJble Apex Court in KEma/ ehat±erjee5 Prithiviraeian, Pra'moc! Su.ryabhan _Pawar5 Maim AhmedS anc] Mafresfewar I,-gga sL,Prat the graV'Ity and' nature Of the allegations levelled against the petitioner/Accusec! No.1 is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail, but `vA',-'itri the fo!iowing s+lringent conc!itions.
37- . Further in view of the facts and circumstances, the investigating Officer iS requirec! expeciite the process oT~ inVeStiga`tiOn a.S early aS Possible.
f= f1 Ilifr! i =e!.nh!
t`>±t:±t=FJI`±Et
38- in i;ne result, trle i~Crim.inai Petiilior! is aiiovt.;ec! `t,lu,fith tlne TcOiiCj'`giving
I
CrJrE ditiOnS: I
I
I- in the e-v-erlLl I,i r]is -arresLl, {rle Petitioner,JAccusec! Nlo.1 shall! hLJe
enlarged on bail-subject to the execLting a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (P`upees Twenty Five Thousand Only), with |lwo sureLlies for the like sum each tc the satisfaction of the I arre_sf.ing police offic.ia_is;
ii The Pe+li+lioner,;,A\ccusec! Nc.1 sha!! make him[se!f a``v,'ai!ab!e for investigation as anci when requireci;
<'pr3;fro <?st .ng,.-23
Dr.YLR, J CrI.P.No.3919 of 2025 Dated 15.O9.2025 iii. The Pe{itioher/Accused No.1 shall no.I cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;
iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 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., till filing of the charge sheet.
v. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the limits of the state without the express permission from the Station House Officer I concerned. I vi. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent shalli not express their I views about the merits or demerits of this.case either before the print media or electronic media until the conclusion of the trial.
vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. lf he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.
39. However, it is made clear that the observations made above were only confined to the disposal of the Criminal Petition and -in no way be construed {o have an expression on the mefi{s of the case before the I learned Trial Court SD/-A. VIJAYA BABU ASS!STAN EGISTRAR //FRELjE ©©PY/I SEC-"C)N OF-FiCER E Toj The Station House offI-Cer, Hindupur I Town Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai DI'StriCt.
/ z2. One r,a fn _ ___ _ _.^`ri ARI I_ _.,. IN`_l` , `. _QHn-`^,Dl vl l`,Vl,t`la `J,^rI`,^^^+A r^r`, ,luVUuaLt= l^l LuruuJ
3. One CC to Sri N ASWARTHA NARAYANA, Advocate [opuc]
4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofA.P[OUT]
5. One spare copy KJ + Li=iE= HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED:15.09.2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.3919 of 2025 t i,'=`' ALLOWED .,~:-\.idsfz'fl+