Isukapatla Harsha Veena Vs The State of Andhra… — Anticipatory Bail | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Isukapatla Harsha Veena Vs The State of Andhra… — Anticipatory Bail | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail granted to the petitioner/accused in Crime No. 04 of 2026 of Railway Koduru P.S., Tirupathi District, subject to seven conditions (personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties; appearance before the Magistrate within one week; weekly Saturday reporting to the SHO till charge sheet; cooperation with investigation; no threat/inducement to witnesses; no leaving district limits without permission; surrender of passport; no social-media statements about the case), with liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation on violation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/accused, arraigned in Crime No. 04/2026 of Railway Koduru Police Station, Tirupathi District for offences punishable under Sections 308(5), 351(2), 61(2) r/w 3(5) BNS, is entitled to pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail under Section 482 BNSS.

Court's answer

Pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail granted to the petitioner/accused: the Court held it inappropriate at that stage to decide the question of culpability by accepting the allegations, having regard to the facts that the petitioner is a woman, a public servant, and that a case has also been registered based on a complaint lodged by her against the son of the defacto complainant.

Ratio / Principle

Bail granted subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the concerned Magistrate Court within one week with personal bonds of Rs.20,000/- and two sureties each for a like sum; (ii) weekly appearance before the Station House Officer every Saturday between 10:00 AM and 05:00 PM till filing of charge sheet; (iii) availability for investigation and cooperation with the Investigating Officer; (iv) no threat, inducement or promise to prosecution witnesses; (v) no leaving the district limits without express permission of the concerned Court; (vi) surrender of passport, or affidavit of non-possession; (vii) no statements relating to the case on social media or any other social network platform.

Key takeaways

In the event of violation of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.ratio¶64
The observations made in the order are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and shall not be construed as opinion on the merits of the Crime.obiter¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail – granted. Petition under S. 482 BNSS by a 30-year-old woman government employee (Junior Assistant) arraigned as accused in Crime No. 04/2026 of Railway Koduru P.S., Tirupathi District, for offences punishable under Sections 308(5), 351(2), 61(2) r/w 3(5) BNS, founded on the prosecution allegation that she demanded Rs. 25 crores from the defacto complainant's family and threatened false imputation and social-media circulation. The State (Assistant Public Prosecutor) opposed, citing CCTV footage and CDR evidence of visits to the complainant's son's office, other purported victims, and likelihood of tampering with evidence; the petitioner contended the case was vague and retaliatory, pointing to her own complaints against the complainant's son to the NHRC and the DGP. Holding it inappropriate at that stage to decide culpability by accepting the allegations, and noting that the petitioner is a woman, a public servant, and a complainant in a case against the defacto complainant's son, the Court granted pre-arrest bail subject to conditions: personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties and appearance before the Magistrate within one week; weekly Saturday reporting to the SHO till charge sheet; availability for investigation; no threat, inducement or promise to witnesses; no leaving the district without court permission; surrender of passport or affidavit of non-possession; and no statements on the case in social media. On violation, the prosecution may seek cancellation. Observations confined to the bail application and not to be construed as opinion on the merits.

[3396]

V

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl/ MONDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

:PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 964 OF 2026

Between:

Isukapatia Harsha Veena, D/o. Isukapatia Sujan, aged about 30 years,Jr. Asst. Govt. R/o. H. No. 3-1-80,Badvel, YSR Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh

Petitioner/Accused

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi,Through Station House Officer, Railway Koduru^Police Station,Tirupathi District.

Respondent/Complainant

Petition under Section 482 of BNSS (438 of Cr.P.C.,) praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant an Anticipatory^{Bailineventofarrest} of the petitioner/Accused in Crime No. 04 of 2026 of Railway Koduru P.S. Tirupathi District for alleged offence under 173 BNSS for alleged offence under Section 308(5), 351 (2), 61(2) r/w 3 (5) BNS^Act

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER ; SRI. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER

k»»>»itfcjJ5\PHC010063582026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

[3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 964/2026

Between:

1.ISUKAPATLA HARSHA VEENA, D/0. ISUKAPATIA SUJAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, JR. ASST. GOVT. R/0. H. NO. 3-1-80,BADVEL, YSR CUDDAPAH DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI,THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,RAILWAY KODURU POLICE STATION,TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum^ofGrounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to grant an Anticipatory Bail in event of arrest of the petitioner/Accused in Crime No. 04 of 2026 of Railway Koduru P.S. Tirupathi District for alleged offence under 173 BNSS for alleged offence under Section 308(5), 351 (2), 61 (2) r/w 3 (5) BNS Act ,and pass

lA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 to grant an Interim Protection^{tothePetitioner/} Accused by directing the Crime No. 04 of 2026 Railway Koduru P.S. Tirupathi District, not to take any Coercive Steps against the^{Petitioner/Accused} in

' 2

Crime No 04/2026 dt 07/01/2026 of RaNway Koduru P.S. Tirupathi District, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition in the interest of the justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1.SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

3

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 964/2026

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 Cr.No.04/2026 on the file of Railway Koduru Police Station, Tirupathi District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 308(5), 351(2), 61(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

Heard Sri Sateesh Galla, Sri P.Sai Krishna Azad, Sri Kashapogu Suresh representing Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor^{onbehalfoftheState.}

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the defacto complainant submitted a complaint stating that the accused began visiting her son’s office. who is an M.L.A., under the pretext of personal difficulties. Gradually, the accused developed an acquaintance with her son and her family and introduced herself as a Civil Services aspirant seeking^financial assistance. Believing her representations, the complainant’s family, along with another family, provided monetary help on several occasions. Later, the accused informed them that she had failed in the examinations but continued to contact the complainant and her family in a distressed manner. Subsequently, she demanded Rs. 25 crores to be paid immediately and threatened that if the amount was not paid, she would falsely allege that her son had an illegal

relationship with her. She also threatened to circulate this false information social media, thereby causing mental harassment to the complainant and her family.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein ISi a public servant and has nothing to do with the alleged incident, He further submits that the allegations made in the present case are vague and omnibus in nature, and there is no material to establish the commission of any offence against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is a married woman, now divorced, and has a child. The petitioner herself is a victim of the acts of the complainant’s son, against whom she has already filed complaints with the NHRC and the DGP, resulting in a case being registered. The present case, it is contended, has been filed solely to harass the petitioner. He further submits that, except for the offence of extortion, all the other alleged offences are punishable with a maximum imprisonment of seven years. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners finally prays to allow the petition by imposing any conditions.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that CCTV footage and CDR evidence show that the petitioner visited the office of the complainant’s son several times. He further submitted that there are other victims who have also fallen into the trap of the petitioner, and that the present case constitutes extortion. It was also pointed out that the petitioner lodged a complaint against the complainant’s son only after the

5

istrati on of the present case, and that this anticipatory bail application has been filed directly before this Hon’ble Court without first approaching the Court below. It is further contended that, if the petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there is every likelihood of their tampering with the evidence and hampering the ongoing investigation. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant’s son is an influential person and there is a strong likelihood that he may influence the investigation or prosecution. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court directly, seeking anticipatory bail.

Considering the submissions made and upon careful perusal of the material on record, and having regard to the facts that the petitioner is a woman, a public servant, and that a case has also been registered based on a complaint lodged by her, this Court is of the view that it is not appropriate at this stage to decide the question of culpability by accepting the allegations. In view of these circumstances, and considering that the petitioner’s case IS lodged against the son of the defacto complainant, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail to the petitioner/accused.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions:

i. The petitioner/Accused shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within a period of one (1) week from today and shall furnish personal bonds for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees

■V

„ 6

twenty thousand only) with two sureties each for a^likesum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;

II. On release, the petitioner/Accused shall appear before^the Station House Officer concerned, once in a week i.e., on every Saturday, between 10:00 AM and 05:00 PM, till filing of charge sheet.

III. The petitioner/Accused shall make herself available for investigation as and when required and shall cooperate^with the Investigating Officer for further investigation.

IV. The petitioner/Accused, shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;

V. The petitioner/Accused shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the concerned Court.

VI. The petitioner/Accused shall surrender her passport, if any, to the Court concerned. If she claims that she does not have passport, she shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Court concerned.

VII. The petitioner/Accused shall not directly or indirectly make any statements relating to this case in the social media or any other social network platform.

In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. 10. It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and they^{shallnotbeconstruedas} opinion on the merits of the Crime.

7

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in

this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

SD/-K.V.RAGHAVULU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

\

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION O

f^CE^

To,

The Station House Officer,Railway Koduru Police Station,Tirupath i District.

One CC to SRI. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OPUC] 4. One spare copy

HIGH COURT

DR.VJP.J

DATED:02/03/2026

BAIL ORDER

CRLP.No.964 of 2026

ALLOWED

<br>I -
<br>V ^ //
c'i'l T r- 'v\5'5X