Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dharavathu Ramesh Nayak vs State Of Haryana And Another on 17 March, 2026
1
APHC010396892025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8023/2025
Between:
1. DHARAVATHU RAMESH NAYAK, S/O. D. VENKATESWARA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, ROADS AND
BUILDINGS DEPT., R/O. PORANKI VILLAGE, PENAMALURU
MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, PENAMALURU POLICE STATION, KRISHNA
DISTRICT, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI.
2. BHUKYA SARASWATHI, D/O. SANDHYA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/O.GOLLAMANDALA THANDA, A.KONDURU MANDAL, NTR
DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail to
the Petitioner/Accused, in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No.
414 of 2025 of Penamaluru Police Station, Krishna District, by directing that
2
in the event of his arrest, he shall be forthwith released on bail on such terms
and conditions as the Court deems fit and proper
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. V R MAHESWARA RAO PALETI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. -
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
3. SRINIVASULU P
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8023 OF 2025
ORDER:-
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.414 of 2025 of Penamaluru Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 69 and 351(2) of BNS.
2. Heard Mr.Paleti V.R.Maheswara Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr.P.Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that it pertains to an incident of sexual intercourse with a woman by means of deceitful promises and threats, which occurred prior to 20.07.2025 at Poranki Village, and was reported to the police on 20.07.2025. The complainant stated that after completing her degree, she joined coaching at Sreedhars Institute, Nakkala Road, Vijayawada, and had been staying at Satya Sai Women‟s Hostel for the past six months, during which time she became acquainted with the accused. On 25.05.2025, at about 20:00 hours, the accused took the complainant to his house situated in Poranki Village and became physically intimate with her by making deceitful promises that he would marry her. Later, when she informed 4 him that she had missed her menstrual cycle, he allegedly forced her to take tablets for abortion. Subsequently, when she asked him to marry her, he refused and threatened to kill her. Hence, the complainant lodged the complaint.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as a Technical Assistant in the Roads & Buildings Department. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are both unmarried. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner initially submitted a complaint dated 01.07.2025 against respondent No. 2, alleging that she was extorting money from him. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner also sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, which reads as follows:
"The petitioner is being subjected to extortion and blackmail by a woman named Bhukya Saraswati and her family. After he rejected her marriage proposal, the family allegedly demanded Rs.5,00,000/-, threatening to file a false rape case and ruin his career. The situation escalated on 25.05.2025, when the accused reportedly trespassed into his home, assaulted him, and forced him to sign blank papers. Out of fear, the complainant paid Rs.3,00,000/-, but the accused have since increased their demand to Rs.10,00,000/-. Citing extreme mental distress and threats to his life, the complainant is requesting immediate legal action against Saraswati, her parents, and an individual named Supriya."5
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 19494 of 2025 before this Hon‟ble Court seeking to declare the inaction on the part of the police in not registering his complaint as FIR and not taking action on his complaint dated 01.07.2025. Learned counsel would further contend that the petitioner is innocent and that both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 belong to the same place and the same Scheduled Tribe (ST) community. It is also submitted that the crucial part of the investigation might have already been completed and the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient sureties for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would submit that the matter was placed before the elders, and the petitioner had promised to marry her. It is further submitted that the petitioner threatened respondent No.2 to prevent her from pursuing her complaint. There is every likelihood that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence and threaten witnesses if anticipatory bail is granted. Hence, the grant of anticipatory bail is vehemently opposed.
7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is at a nascent stage. So far, L.Ws. 1 to 6 have been examined, and the medical report is yet to be received. The statement of the victim has been recorded by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the learned Assistant 6 Public Prosecutor also vehemently opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in Pratibha Manchanda and another vs. State of Haryana and another1, with regard to the factors and parameters that need to be kept in mind by the Court to grant anticipatory bail, categorically held as follows:
"19. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] , this Court carefully considered the principles established by the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] case. After a thorough deliberation, this Court arrived at the following conclusion : (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre case [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] , SCC p. 736, para 112) "112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;1
(2023) 8 SCC 181 7
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people."
20. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 7 SCC 731 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 331] , the Constitution Bench reaffirmed that when considering applications for anticipatory bail, courts should consider factors such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the specific facts of the case."
9. In view of the judgment referred to supra and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no prima-facie case is made out by the petitioner to consider his plea for grant of anticipatory bail. Fact remaining that both are unmarried, belong to same place and community. Prima-facie material is there against the petitioner for the alleged offences. Medical reports yet to be received. Investigation is in progress. There are no merits to entertain this petition. Hence, this Court is not inclined to consider the request of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail.
10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
___________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 17.03.2026 SDP 8 65 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8023 OF 2025 17.03.2026 SDP