State of Andhra Pradesh v. P Kiran Kumar

memorandum of grounds arguments of SRI D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Advocate and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent the following the Court made No.1, r 2 Dr.YLR.J Crl.P.No.7315 of2025

11.08.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No:7315/2025 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused on bail in Cr.No.252 of 2025 of East Police I Station, Tirupati, registered against the petitioner/Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 109(1), 351(2) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for brevity ‘the IT Act’).

#2. Facts, in brief, of the prosecution are that prior to 12.06.2025, at Divyaramam Park, Alipiri Road, Tirupati Town, the accused approached the complainant, serving as VRO, LB Nagar, Tirupati, under the pretext of a matrimonial alliance. In July 2024, the accused lured the complainant to Divyaramam Park near Kapila Theertham and committed sexual intercourse without her consent. On questioning to marry her, the accused is said to have attempted to kill the complainant by pushing her under a moving bus near Korlagunta Road, from which she narrowly escaped. Subsequently, the accused allegedly issued threats and engaged in online defamation by creating fictitious Instagram accounts to circulate false and derogatory content about the complainant, intending to malign her reputation.

#3. The victim in this case was not arrayed as respondent No.2. Therefore, this Court directed the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on 22.07.2025 to 3 Dr.YLR.J Crl.P.No.7315of2025

11.08.2025 implead the victim as respondent No.2 and serve notice on the victim and file proof to that effect. Pursuant to the said directions, the learned counsel for the petitioner impleaded the victim as respondent No.2 and served notice on her. A memo was filed along with proof of service. No representation for the victim/respondent No.2. Sri M.Sravana Kumar, learned Counsel is appointed as learned Legal Aid Counsel for the victim/respondent No.2. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee was directed to issue necessary proceedings in this behalf.

#4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Legal Aid Counsel and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

#5. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the o’ffences alleged against him and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations contained in the complaint are wholly baseless and appear to have been fabricated with the sole intention of maligning the Petitioner and subjecting him to unwarranted criminal prosecution. It is evident that the accusations have been exaggerated to attract more serious penal provisions, including Section 109 of ‘the BNS’, thereby attempting to portray a distorted and inflated version of events. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has no nexus whatsoever with the alleged incident. The claim that he promised to marry the de-facto complainant and engaged in a personal relationship with her is categorically denied as false, concocted, and malicious. Such allegations have been made with the ulterior 4 Dr.YLR.j Crl.P.No.7315 of2025

11.08.2025 motive of harassing the Petitioner and his family members. The assertion of rape at Kapila Theertham is equally untenable and devoid of credibility. The complaint fails to mention any specific date or time of the alleged occurrence which casts serious doubt on its veracity. Moreover, Kapila Theertham is a public and densely populated area frequented by devotees throughout the day, rendering the possibility of such an incident highly implausible.

#5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also denies the allegation that the Petitioner attempted to kill the complainant by pushing her in front of a moving bus near Korlagunta Road. This claim is entirely fabricated and appears to have been made solely to invoke Section 109(1) of ‘the BNS’ and escalate the gravity of the case. The alleged incident is neither supported by eyewitness testimony nor corroborated by any CCTV footage or other material evidence, thereby failing to establish even a prima facie case against the Petitioner. Regarding the allegation of abusive messages, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the claim that Petitioner used filthy language against the complainant is false and misleading. On the contrary, it is the de-facto complainant who sent abusive messages to the Petitioner and his mother and harassed them with repeated calls during nighttime hours. Copies of these messages have been enclosed for the kind perusal of this Court, which clearly demonstrate the complainant’s conduct and further reinforce the Petitioner’s innocence. 5 Dr.YLR.J Crl.P.No.7315of2025

11.08.2025

#6. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was illegally detained on

12.06.2025 at East Police Station, Tirupati, at approximately 10:30 AM, in the presence of his mother, Smt. Rukmini. A formal grievance was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Tirupati, on 16.06.2025 under Grievance No. TPT202506167506. However, the remand report falsely states that Petitioner was arrested on 16.06.2025 at 7:30 PM at Tirupati Bus Stand. This procedural irregularity is indicative of manipulation and abuse of process. It is pertinent to note that the father of the de-facto complainant is employed in the police department and appears to have exercised undue influence orchestrating the illegal detention and fabricating the arrest narrative to suit the complainant’s version. Petitioner is willing to furnish suitable sureties and undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may deem fit to impose in the interest of justice. Petitioner was falsely implicated by the police in the crime. Petitioner would abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. If any condition is imposed while granting the bail. Petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to enlarge him on bail.

#7. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed in granting of bail stating that some more material witnesses have to be examined; investigation is not completed; if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would not be available for the investigation and Petitioner may threaten the witnesses; he would escape from the clutches of law; and it is 6 Dr.YLR,J%^ Crl.PNo.7315 of2025

11.08.2025 urged to dismiss the bail petition as the accusation against the Petitioner is well founded.

#8. Mr. Sravan Kumar, learned Legal Aid Counsel while reiterating the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that Petitioner is not entitled for any relief at this juncture as the accusation is well founded and it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

#9. The Petitioner is aged about 36 years and doing business in Chittoor. The Respondent No.2 is aged about 37 years, working as Village Revenue Officer in Tirupati. In the complaint lodged by the Respondent No.2, there no references about the date and time of the alleged offences. The Jurisdictional Magistrate already recorded statement Respondent No.2 under Section 164 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ So far seven witnesses have been examined by the Investigating Officer. The period for custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is over. The Petitioner and Respondent No.2 fully grown and at their matured ages. Petitioner has been in the judicial custody for more than 56 days. He was arrested on 16.06.2025. The Petitioner has no prior criminal antecedents, and there is no material to suggest that he would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

#10. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner bail with the following stringent conditions: 7 Dr.YLR.J Crl.P.No.7315of2025

11.08.2025 i. The petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional \ Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati ii. The petitioner/Accused appear before Investigating Officer, on every second and fourth Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till the chargesheet is filed. iii. The petitioner/Accused shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future, iv. The petitioner/Accused shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. V. The petitioner/Accused shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh wrthout prior permission from the Investigation Officer, vi. The petitioner/Accused shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not 8 Dr.YLR,j > Crl.P.No.7315 of2025

11.08.2025 have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.

#11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. /J //TRUE COPY// SD/- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT Rl [STRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

#1. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, Chittoor District

#2. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Tirupati. 3. The Station House Officer, East Police Station, Tirupati, Tirupati District 4. One CC to SRI. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCS to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

#6. One spare copy PSR HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED:11/08/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.7315 of 2025 ALLOWED