Dismissed¶36

Nadipalli Yeswanthkumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Jan 2026CRLP/8788/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory/pre-arrest bail refused - Nadipalli Yeswanthkumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Petition No. 8788 of 2025, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, decided 22.01.2026 by Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa; Section 482 BNSS 2023; Sections 69 and 318(4) BNS 2023; Crime No. 40 of 2025, Maredumilli Police Station; cheating and sexual intercourse by deceitful means; promise of marriage; investigation at nascent stage; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/accused, considering the facts and circumstances, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and that the investigation is at nascent stage. ¶35

Nadipalli Yeswanthkumar Vs The State of Andhra… — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

APHC010429682025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3396]

¶6

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8788/2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

NADIPALLI YESWANTHKUMAR, AGE 29YRS, S/O.NOOKARAJU, CASTE ST KONDAREDDY, D.NO.4-54, GANGALAMMA VEEDHI, MAREDUMILLI VILLAGE, MAREDUMILLI MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAREDUMILLI POLICE STATION, MAREDUMILLI, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT.

¶15

XXXXXXX, RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 17.09.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.P.NO.8788 OF 2025.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶18

1.INAPURAPU SURYANARAYANA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶20

1.GOTTUMUKKALA AMULYA SPENCER

¶21

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

3.LEGAL AID

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8788 OF 2025

¶26

ORDER:-

¶27

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.40 of 2025 of Maredumilli Police Station, Maredumilli, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 69 and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’).

¶28

None appeared for respondent No.2. Heard Mr. I.Suryanarayana, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶29

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that this is a case of cheating and sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, which occurred prior to 01.08.2025 at Maredumilli Village and Mandal and was reported on 01.08.2025 at 8.00 p.m. At the relevant time, the complainant was studying intermediate, during which she met the accused, who was her classmate. In the year 2018, the complainant and the accused fell in love and used to talk to each other over the phone at their respective homes without the knowledge of anyone. Subsequently, without obtaining acceptance of their relationship from their families, the accused proposed marriage to the complainant. While the complainant was at her home in Gummaladoddi Village of Gokavaram

¶30

¶31

Mandal, the accused approached her, assured her that he would marry her, and threatened to kill her if she refused. Believing his words, the complainant left her house with him. Thereafter, the accused kept her at the houses of his relatives for a few days, and taking advantage of occasions when no one was present, he convinced her to marry him at his niece’s house in Denduluru Village and had sexual intercourse with her four to five times. Later, the accused refused to marry the complainant and humiliated her, even in the presence of elders. Distressed by his conduct, the complainant left the house for a few days. Subsequently, she filed a complaint against the accused on 01.08.2025, and based on the said complaint, the police registered the present case against the accused.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no specific overt acts are attributed to him in the present matter. It is further submitted that the investigation might have been completed. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court to secure his presence for the purpose of investigation.

¶33

Mr. K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that the investigation is at nascent stage, and vehemently oppose the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶34

¶35

Considering the facts and circumstances, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner and the investigation is at nascent stage, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/ Accused.

¶36