Danda Venkata Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

DANDA VENKATA KRISHNA, S/O SUBBA RAO, AGED 43 YEARS, GOVERNMENT SERVICE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.302, KOMMARNENI GALAXY 7TH LINE, SVN COLONY, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. THROUGH ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP AT AMARAVATI.

¶14

DASARI VANI, W/O. DASARI VENKATA NARENDRA, R/O. THE HOUSE IN DOOR NO.17-13-1704, 2ND LINE, OPP. TO SAIKRISHNA NAGAR, I.P.D.COLONY, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 10.10.2025 IN CRL.P.NO.10226 OF 2025.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶16

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 in the event of Petitioner/Accused being arrested in connection with F.I.R No. 274 of 2025, dt. 17.09.2025 on the file of Lalapet Police Station, Guntur District,

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

2

¶19

Petition under Section 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 may be pleased Honorable court may be pleased to implead the petitioner/proposed respondent No.2 as respondent No.2 in CrI.P.No. 10226/2025 and pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶21

1.C V R RUDRA PRASAD

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶23

1.BALA DASTAGIRI P

¶24

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶25

3

¶26

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10226/2025

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity “BNSS”) by the petitioner/Accused seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No.274 of 2025, dated 17.09.2025 of Lalapet Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 329(4), 79, 351(2), 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶29

The case of the prosecution in brief is that initially the defacto complainant got acquaintance with the accused relating to a case of elderly woman, wherein the accused helped her. Later, the accused used to harass her for which she gave a complaint to the SP, and enquiry was conducted against the accused. Later, on 26.08.2025, the father of the accused abused the defacto complainant and threatened to kill her. Thereafter, the accused visited her house apologizing for his father’s behaviour, trespassed, closed all doors, attacked her stomped with foot, blackmailed her, beat her and had sexual intercourse her against her will. He blackmailed her that he will release objectionable videos if she did not continue the relationship with him as per his wishes.

¶30

Heard Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bala Dastagiri.P and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

¶31

4

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the sole accused. The petitioner herein is a Public Servant. The petitioner is innocent and a false case has been registered against him. He would further submit that the allegations made against the petitioner are contrary to the complaint. He would further submit that the defacto complainant previously gave two complaints and the same were withdrawn by her. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and prays to allow the petition.

¶33

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the investigation is still in progress. She further submitted that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been completed and the RFSL report is pending. The petitioner/accused is a police officer, and if he is released on anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood of his tampering with the evidence and hampering the ongoing investigation. She finally prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondent/de facto complainant submitted that the de facto complainant was forced to withdraw her earlier complaints. She is a married woman with a child, and there are specific allegations made against the petitioner. She is still receiving threats in connection with the present crime. He further submitted that the de facto complainant has filed a writ petition seeking an alternate investigation. He finally prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

5

¶36

Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the materials available on record, as rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, there are specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner, and the investigation is still at a nascent stage. Further, there is prima facie material available against the petitioner, which requires a thorough investigation. In view of the gravity and seriousness of the allegations, and the risk that granting anticipatory bail at this stage may lead to tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, this Court finds that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage.

¶37