Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Rudrapati Mahesh Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 June, 2025
APHC010293172025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5978/2025
Between:
1. RUDRAPATI MAHESH BABU, . S/O SURESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT
29 YRS, OCC VRO, R/O D.NO. 18-7-11B, AMBEDKAR COLONY,
PONNUR TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by Public
Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh atAmaravati.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner for granting of pre-arrest bail
in connection with Crime No.110 of 2025 of Ponnur Twon Police Station,
Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections
64(2)(m), 115(2), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
2. Facts, in brief, of the case are that on 08.03.2025, the de-facto
complainant, who married Naga Prasad 21 years ago and had two children,
2
allegedly advanced a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the petitioner/accused No.1,
Rudrapati Mahesh, for his personal needs, against which she obtained blank
signed cheques and a promissory note as security. Subsequently, the
petitioner is said to have developed an illicit intention, allegedly began stalking
the complainant, and pressured her to divorce her husband and marry him. It
is alleged that on 06.04.2025, the petitioner pursuaded the complainant to
come Guntur under the pretext of repaying the loan but instead forcefully took
her to a hotel, sexually assaulted her, and recorded the act on video.
Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly resorted to blackmail and threats,
demanding further sums and coercing her. The complainant claims that due to
continued threats, she paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner.
3. Further, when she indicated her intent to lodge a police complaint, the
petitioner reportedly took her to his mother’s residence in Ambedkar Colony,
Ponnur, where he, along with co-accused including his mother, sister, and one
Sumanth, allegedly abused and physically assaulted her. They further
threatened her with false SC/ST atrocity allegations. Other associates of the
petitioner also alleged to have harassed her over phone. It is contended that
the complainant’s husband, upon learning of the events, severed ties with her.
The complainant claims that the petitioner continued to sexually assault her
under threats and later, upon learning of her pregnancy, attempted to coerce
her into an abortion by administering pills and injections during another
alleged incident at a Guntur hotel on 22.05.2025.
3
4. It was due to these unbearable actions, the complainant lodged a formal
report, leading to the registration of Crime No.110/2025 at Ponnur Town Police
Station, Guntur District.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
6. Sri Eerla Sateesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits
that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of his family. Petitioner is working
as VRO. The complaint of the de-facto complainant is in typewriting. The de-
facto complainant on earlier occasion lodged a case against another person in
Crime No.20 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 448, 323, 506, 509 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.’). Similarly, she lodged the
complaint in Crime No.15 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 380 of ‘the
I.P.C.,’ in the same police station against another individual for commission of
theft. She also lodged a complaint regarding outraging of her modesty in
Ponnur Police Station in Crime No.44 of 2018 for the offence under Sections
354, 452, 506, 341 of ‘the I.P.C.’ Petitioner is not married yet. Whereas the de-
facto complainant is married one and got two children. Even as per the
version of the de-facto complainant she gave Rs.25,00,000/- to the Petitioner
as hand loan and for that she took cheques and promissory notes. It is the
version of the de-facto complainant that the petitioner besides evaded
payment of Rs.25,00,000/-, he pressurized the de-facto complainant to marry
him by taking divorce from her husband. The petitioner has not committed any
4
offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner would abide
by any condition to be imposed by this court.
7. Per contra, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that the 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 he would escape from the clutches of law; and urged to dismiss the bail
petition.
8. As seen from the record, several documents have been filed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the de-facto complainant lodged
several complaints against numerous people on the same or other allegations.
The complaint of the de-facto complainant is in typewriting. Petitioner is not
married yet. The de-facto complainant is married one and got two children. As
per the version of the de-facto complainant she gave Rs.25,00,000/- to the
Petitioner as hand loan and for that she took cheques and promissory notes.
the petitioner besides evaded payment of Rs.25,00,000/-, he pressurized the
de-facto complainant to marry him by taking divorce from her husband.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to consider the request of petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail.
10. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed with the following directions:
a) In the event of arrest of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be
enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), with two sureties
5each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting
police officials;
b) The petitioner shall make themselves available for investigation
as and when required;
c) The petitioner shall not cause any threat, inducement or
promise to the prosecution witnesses;
d) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer
concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between
10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.
e) The petitioner shall not leave the district limits without the
express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dt: 25.06.2025
VTS
[ad_1]
Source link