Kappala Teja Sankar v. The State of Andhra pradesh

arguments of sri KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU, Advocate for the petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent, the court made the foIIowI-ng ORDER ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the Petit'lOner/A24, seeking bail, in crime No.53/2025 of Cyber Crime Pol|lce Station, Visakhapa{nam City.

#2. A case has been registered againStthe Pet'l{iOner and OtherSfOrthe offences under sections 108, 308(2), 319(2), 318(4), 79, 351(2) of B.N.S.S. and Section 66-C, 66-D, and 67-A of Information Technology Act] 2000.

#3. Case of the proseCut|lOn, in brief, iS that, the de-faCtO COmPlainant surada Akhila Devi is a resident Of Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam City, is the wife of one surada Narendra (hereinafter Called aS 'deCeaSed'). The de-facto complainant is doing housekeeping work in Simhadri Hospital, The deceased had taken loan for an amount Of Rs.2,000/- from online app, subsequently he could not repay and that on 07.12.2024, he rece'lved whatsapp call |lnforming that the 'deCeaSedl had taken loan for Rs.2,000/- and also sent some Obscene mOrPhed Photographs Of the de- facto compla'lnant and 'deceased', then the de-facto complainant paid Rs.2,000/-through Phonepe to that mobile. The de-facto comPlainant aS usual went to Hospital to attend her duty. On 07.12.2024 she received the phone call from her brother-in-law stating that the 'deceased' died due to hanging with saree 'ln their room immediately the 'deceased' was shI-fled tO K.G.Hospital, Vis'akhapatnam, where the doctors stated that he 3' Was brought dead. Hence the F.I:R.

#4. ' Learned counsel for the petI'tiOner contended that the petitioner was arrested on 22.5.2025 and since then he has been in judicial custody and his mobile was also seized. other accused i.e. A14 and A18 were granted bail by this Court vide crI.P.No.5755 of 2025 on 25.6.2025 and the case of the petitioner is also on the same lines and prays to allow the criminal pe{itjon.

#5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and stated that some more' witnesses are to be examined and if the accused was released on bail, he may tamper the evidence and hamper the investigation.

#6. Heard both sides.

#7. A perusal of the record indicates that the mobile of the petitioner was seized by the investigating officer. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has also placed copy of the order passed in crl.p.No.5755 of 2025 wherein this Court was pleased to grant bail to A14 and A18 and also placed the copy of order in crI.P.No.4355 of 2025 wherein this court was pleased {o grant bail to A6. The reading of the orders as mentioned above indicates that this court allowed the criminal petitions on the ground that most of the investigation might have been completed as the Petitioner has been in judicial custody from 22.5.2025. It is not the case I- ..---=-_==--j` 4 of the prosecution that cListodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for conducting further investigation. The petitioner has got permanent abode at Tenali. When ascertained learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are three antecedents reported against the petitioner. Learned Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the bail application of the petitioner as per the orders dated 17,6.2025 on the ground that investigation officer intend to verify the data that is available in his mobile. As the order came to be passed nearly about 20 days back, this Court finds that the investigating officer might have verified` the data by this time. As seen from the record, prima-facie it does not appear that the act allegedly committed by the petitioner is not directly related to the alleged suicide of the deceased, As most of the investigation is completed and most of the accused persons have been released on bail, this court finds that the release of the accused would not cause hampering of investigation and tampering of evidence, ln the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to consider the prayer of the petitioner, by imposing stringent conditions, as three antecedents were reported against the petitioner.

#8. ln view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/A24 with the following conditions. (i) The petitioner/A24 herein shall be released on his executing a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty ` I-ra r--.aq 5 thousand only) wit-h two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila CourtJ Visakhaptanam,I (ii) On release, the petitioner shall appear before the station House Officer concerned on every wednesday and sunday between 10.00am to 5.00pm till filing of charge sheet; (iii) the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and hamper the investigation and shall cooperate for investigation.

#9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. -- _ , Sd/- K,TATA RAG //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

#1. The Sessions Judge, Manila Court, visakhapatnam. 2. The Superintendent, central Prison, visakhapatnam. 3. The SHO., Cyber crime poll'ce station vI-Sakhapatnam City . 4. One CC to SRI. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Advocate [opuc] 5. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofA.P [OPUC]

#6. One spare copy HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED : 08/07/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.6153 of 2025 ALLOWED