Gara Sateesh Kumar alias Satish Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

GARA SATEESH KUMAR ALIAS SATISH, S/O. KONDAYYA, AGED 29 YEARS, EMPLOYEE IN ARMY, R/O. D. NO. 3-84,MANDARADA VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDALVIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF A.P AT AMARAVATHI.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

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 pleased to release the Petitioner / Accused on bail in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No. 88 / 2025 dated: 18.09.2025 Under Section 69 BNS on the file of Santhakaviti Police Station, Vizayanagaram District, and to pass

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶16

1.KARRI ADI BABU

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶18

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

2

¶20

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1340/2026

¶22

ORDER :

¶23

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 8the BNSS9) by the Petitioner/Accused for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 88 of 2025 dated 18.09.2025 on the file of Santhakaviti Police Station, Vizayanagaram District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 8the BNS9).

¶24

Heard Sri Karri Adi Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Notice is served on the defacto complainant in this matter.

¶25

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that prior to 18.09.2025, the accused promised the defacto complainant to marry her and had sexual intercourse with her and subsequently he failed to marry her and on the complaint given by the defacto complainant a case in Crime No. 88 of 2025 dated 18.09.2025 on the file of Santhakaviti Police Station, Vizayanagaram District, was registered for the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner. The earlier anticipatory bail application filed before this Court was dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2026 in Crl.P. No.11135 of 2025, as the then learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his prayer to granting liberty to surrender before the concerned Magistrate Court and to move a regular bail application. Learned counsel for

¶27

3

¶28

the petitioner would submit that the then counsel on record failed to advance submissions on the merits of the case. Consequently, the petitioner could not appear before the concerned Magistrate Court for surrender and has therefore filed the present anticipatory bail application. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that both the petitioner and the de facto complainant are majors. According to the version of the prosecution itself, the de facto complainant voluntarily had a physical relationship with the petitioner. In such circumstances, no offence is made out against the petitioner and the ingredients required to attract the offence under Section 69 of the BNS are not satisfied. He would further submit that the petitioner is presently working in the Army. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Hon9ble Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally prays to allow the petition by imposing any conditions.

¶29

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the investigation in the present matter is not yet completed and is pending for examination of some crucial witnesses. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail as a prima facie case has been established against him based on the material collected during the course of investigation. It is further contended that, if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is every likelihood that he may tamper with the evidence and hamper the ongoing investigation. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

4

¶31

Considering the submissions made and upon careful perusal of the material on record, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the investigation is still pending for examination of certain crucial witnesses and prima facie allegations are made against the petitioner. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are disputed questions of fact which require a full-fledged investigation and cannot be gone into at this stage. Granting of the pre-arrest bail to an accused is not a shield or protection for having committed an offence as per the judgment

¶32

of the Hon9ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab¹ and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi² . Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence alleged and the stage of the investigation, this Court is of the opinion that it is not desirable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶33