Disposed¶29

Chinta Durga v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Apr 2025CRLP/3165/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Section 482 BNSS; Section 35(3) BNSS notice/arrest procedure; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273; offences under Section 78(1)(i), 79, 351(2) r/w 3(5) BNS 2023 (criminal intimidation); Sections 12 r/w 11 and 17 r/w 16 POCSO Act, 2012; Crime No.24 of 2025, Bapatla Rural Police Station, Bapatla District; woman accused; mother of two children; offences punishable with imprisonment less than seven years; no criminal antecedents; petition disposed of with directions to police.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition was disposed of with the above directions; no conventional anticipatory bail order is recorded. The operative direction is that the Police must adhere to the procedure outlined in Section 35 (3) of the BNSS, following the Arnesh Kumar guidelines. ¶29

Chinta Durga Vs the State of Andhra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS should be granted to the petitioner/A.2 in connection with Crime No.24 of 2025 of Bapatla Rural Police Station for offences under Sections 78(1)(i), 79, 351(2) r/w 3(5) BNS, 2023 and Sections 12 r/w 11, 17 r/w 16 POCSO Act, 2012.

¶19

Court's answer

On the nature of the accusations, the Court found that Section 351(2) of the BNS applies, providing a punishment of up to two years, and concluded that the allegations against the petitioner (A.2) and A.1 include criminal intimidation.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Since the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the petitioner is a woman with permanent residence in Bapatla Town, no other criminal antecedents were reported against her, and the Assistant Public Prosecutor gave assurance that the Investigating Officer would follow Section 35 of the BNSS, the Court directed the Police to adhere to the procedure outlined in Section 35 (3) of the BNSS, following the guidelines established in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.), Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), disposed of a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in which the petitioner/A.2, a woman, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No.24 of 2025 of Bapatla Rural Police Station for offences under Sections 78(1)(i), 79, 351(2) r/w 3(5) BNS, 2023 and Sections 12 r/w 11, 17 r/w 16 POCSO Act, 2012. The Court observed that the allegations against A.2 and A.1 include criminal intimidation, Section 351(2) BNS carrying punishment up to two years; that even according to the prosecution the punishment for the alleged offences against the petitioner is less than seven years; that the petitioner is a woman with permanent residence in Bapatla Town; and that no other criminal antecedents were reported against her. Recording the Additional Public Prosecutor's non-opposition and his assurance that the Investigating Officer would follow Section 35(3) BNSS, the Court directed the Police to adhere to the procedure under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS, following the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273, and disposed of the petition, closing pending miscellaneous applications.

¶1

[3369]

¶2

APHC010145662025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3165/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Chinta Durga

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶15

1.CHALLA AJAY KUMAR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶17

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶19

1. The Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/A.2, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No.24 of 2025 of Bapatla Rural Police Station, Bapatla District, for the offences punishable under Section 78(1)(i), 79, 351(2), r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’), 12 r/w.11, 17 r/w.16 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶20

2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that when the defacto complainant was 14 years old, A.1 pursued her under the pretext of love. Her mother approached their village elder, who in turn questioned Peetha Ajay (A.1) about his intentions to marry her, but he denied. In 2022, the complainant married

¶21

¶22

Pedduneni Prathap. After her first pregnancy ended in an abortion due to health issues, she became pregnant again. During her 7th month of pregnancy, A.1 posted a status on Instagram, which was noticed by her husband. This led to inquiries about him, and after her second pregnancy was also aborted. A.1 and A.2, pressured her to divorce her husband, claiming he would marry her. A.1 then threatened her husband, saying he would kill him if he came to Suryalanka, leading the husband to apply for a divorce. The accused also spread defamatory rumors about the complainant in the village, threatening her and her family with harm.

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences alleged against the accused are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and prays this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is a woman and mother of a dependent of two children. The petitioner has been implicated due to personal enmity and pressure from the complainant’s family and there is no direct evidence to substantiate the claim against the petitioner and the allegations are vague. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor did not oppose the same and concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and he gave assurance that the Investigating Officer will follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

¶24

5. Heard. Perused the material on record.

¶25

6. The main allegation against the petitioner is that she approached the defacto complainant/victim and by putting in fear and she made to talk with A.1 over phone and both insisted her to take divorce from her husband. 7. Considering the nature of the accusations against the petitioner, the Court finds that Section 351(2) of the BNS applies, which provides a punishment of up to two years. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also submits that Sections 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act are relevant to the case.

¶26

¶27

Therefore, the allegations against the petitioner (A.2) and A.1 include criminal intimidation.

¶28

8. Even according to the prosecution, the punishment for the alleged offences against the petitioner is less than seven years. Additionally, the petitioner is a woman and has permanent residence in Bapatla Town. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor confirms that there are no other criminal antecedents reported against the petitioner (A.2). Considering the assurance from the Assistant Public Prosecutor that the Investigating Officer will follow the procedure under Section 35 of the BNSS, and since the offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, this Court directs the Police to adhere to the procedure outlined in Section 35 (3) of the BNSS, following the guidelines established in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another¹ .

¶29

9. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶30

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶31

_____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

Date: 10.04.2025

1 (2014) 8 SCC 273