Batchu Venu Bhaskar Reddy Chinna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

APHC010120362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2569/2025

Between:

Batchu Venu Bhaskar Reddy @ Chinna ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. BEHARA RAJSHEKAR

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2569/2025 ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is filed on behalf of

the petitioner herein to enlarge him on bail in the event of arrest in connection

with Crime No. 382 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under

Sections 109(1), 308(5), 318(4), 131, 127(2), 351(2), 61(2) BNS, 67 ITA 2002-

2008 on the file of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that defacto complainant was

running a coffee shop at Vishalakshinagar, Visakhapatnam in the name of

WABI SABI ART CAFÉ. Six months prior to the report, one lady by name K.

Joy Jamima has visited defacto complainant's coffee shop along with her

friend Udaya (Navya) and introduced herself as Digital Marketer and then told

him she can help him develop his business and visited coffee shop regularly.

Later one day, A1 insisted defacto complainant to come out for a drive, when

he went for the drive, while he was driving the car, she sprayed something on

his face and when he questioned the same, she replied that it is just a body

mist. After some days, A1 invited complainant for dinner at her house and

offered him juice and forcibly made him drink it. After dinner, defacto

complainant felt unusually drowsy, later he woke up in A-1's house. On the

same evening, A-1 showed him some intimate photos. A-1 used to compel the

defacto complainant to attend parties at A-2's house. She also forced him to

divorce his wife and marry her and threatened him that she will file a rape

case against him in the same way she did to others and extorted money. She 3

also threatened defacto complainant with criminal force from her gang,

compelled him to enter her drug business and threatened to share those

photos to family and friends. On 24.05.2024, A-1 wrongfully detained the

defacto complainant. Finally, on 29.07.2024, he ran away from A-1's place.

Hence the Crime.

3. Heard Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned Counsel through V.C., representing

Sri B.Rajashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neelothpal Ganji,

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner

herein is A-6, he is innocent, in fact, he is a victim in the hands of A-1.

Learned counsel would further submit that except making a initial reference in

the First Information Report, nothing in specific is attributed against him. Three

other crimes were also registered against the petitioner wherein the petitioner

was released on regular bail. Learned counsel would further submit that the

entire allegations are made against A-1 that she administered intoxicants and

taking photos in compromising position and threatening people, collecting

money etc. Nothing is alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel would

further submit that the petitioner is an employee in Forest Department. A-1

and A-2 are released on regular bail. Learned counsel finally prays to consider

the request for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that four (4) crimes

have been registered against the petitioner, it is the case of Human trafficking, 4

drugs, extortion. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would also submit that

initially petitioner may be victim but later he strongly continued his relation with

A-1 since 2019. The case diary shows 132 transactions were made between

A-1 and the petitioner (A-6). They have retrieved a compact disc and 1039

calls were transcribed. It is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. The health

condition of the victim in this case is very serious. The involvement of huge

amounts in crypto currency is also present in this matter. Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material

placed on record, it is a fact that FIR does not disclose specific overt acts

against the petitioner except saying that they have formed into a gang. But the

investigation reveals there were transactions between A-1 and A-6 (petitioner)

and calls were made between them. Three more cases are also registered

against the petitioner. The investigation is not completed. In the light of the

severity of the allegations and the nature of the crime, it might have a social

impact, it is not desirable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. In that view, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J

Date:18.03.2025 UPS 5 80 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Crl.P. No.2569 of 2025 Dated.18.03.2025

UPS