Chinta Durga vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others

T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J

The Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/A.2, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No.24 of 2025 of Bapatla Rural Police Station, Bapatla District, for the offences punishable under Section 78(1)(i), 79, 351(2), r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’), 12 r/w.11, 17 r/w.16 of POCSO Act, 2012.

The prosecution's case, in brief, is that when the defacto complainant was 14 years old, A.1 pursued her under the pretext of love. Her mother approached their village elder, who in turn questioned Peetha Ajay (A.1) about his intentions to marry her, but he denied. In 2022, the complainant married Pedduneni Prathap. After her first pregnancy ended in an abortion due to health issues, she became pregnant again. During her 7th month of pregnancy, A.1 posted a status on Instagram, which was noticed by her husband. This led to inquiries about him, and after her second pregnancy was also aborted. A.1 and A.2, pressured her to divorce her husband, claiming he would marry her. A.1 then threatened her husband, saying he would kill him if he came to Suryalanka, leading the husband to apply for a divorce. The accused also spread defamatory rumors about the complainant in the village, threatening her and her family with harm.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences alleged against the accused are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and prays this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is a woman and mother of a dependent of two children. The petitioner has been implicated due to personal enmity and pressure from the complainant’s family and there is no direct evidence to substantiate the claim against the petitioner and the allegations are vague.

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor did not oppose the same and concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and he gave assurance that the Investigating Officer will follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

Heard. Perused the material on record.

The main allegation against the petitioner is that she approached the defacto complainant/victim and by putting in fear and she made to talk with A.1 over phone and both insisted her to take divorce from her husband.

Considering the nature of the accusations against the petitioner, the Court finds that Section 351(2) of the BNS applies, which provides a punishment of up to two years. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also submits that Sections 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act are relevant to the case. Therefore, the allegations against the petitioner (A.2) and A.1 include criminal intimidation.

Even according to the prosecution, the punishment for the alleged offences against the petitioner is less than seven years. Additionally, the petitioner is a woman and has permanent residence in Bapatla Town. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor confirms that there are no other criminal antecedents reported against the petitioner (A.2). Considering the assurance from the Assistant Public Prosecutor that the Investigating Officer will follow the procedure under Section 35 of the BNSS, and since the offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, this Court directs the Police to adhere to the procedure outlined in Section 35 (3) of the BNSS, following the guidelines established in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another (2014) 8 SCC 273.

With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.