Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/2943/2026 of Jampula Appaswamy Naidu alias Jampula Appasawamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 20 April 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2943/2026 Between: 1. JAMPULA APPASWAMY NAIDU
APHC010196092026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2943/2026
Between:
1. JAMPULA APPASWAMY NAIDU ALIAS JAMPULA APPASAWAMY, S/O VENKATA RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,R/O. D.NO. 6- 110, GANTAPURAM,BATHALAPALLI MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE
STATE
OF
ANDHRA
PRADESH,
THROUGH
S.H.OBATHALAPALLI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BYP P
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI.
2. G LAKSHMI NARASAMMA, W/O MADHAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48
YEARS,R/O
SHANTHI
NAGAR,
DHARMAVARAM
TOWNANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. AYESHA AZMA S
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2943 OF 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:-
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 8the BNSS9) by the Petitioner/Accused for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.24 of 2026 of Bathalapalli Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 68(a) of BNS.
2. Heard Mr.S.Ayesha Azma, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that prior to 17.02.2026 at the house of accused & Nursery of complainant, Bathalapalli Village, the complainant stated that petitioner/accused is known to her through her nursery business, engaged her for household work at his residence and during the period, repeatedly behaved inappropriately with her, approached her in a sexually suggestive manner while she was working and made unwanted advances despite her refusal. Further, accused induced and pressured her by offering money and gold and by repeatedly calling her to his house when his wife was absent, thereby subjecting her to unwelcome sexual conduct and harassment and ruing that he took photos and videos without her consent.
Further, he threatened to file a theft case against her if she did not come to work at his house and threatened to send the photos and videos on his cell phone to others and make the matter public.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, even according to the case of the complainant, she joined as a domestic help in the house of the petitioner three months prior to the date of the alleged incident. The learned counsel would further submit that the present case was lodged against the petitioner on 17.02.2026, whereas Crime No.11 of 2026 had already been registered on 19.01.2026 against the defacto complainant on the allegation of theft, based on a complaint made by the wife of the petitioner. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation. The contents of the complaint would indicate that the petitioner allegedly threatened to post videos of the victim on social media or to lodge a false theft case against her; however, in fact, the theft case had already been lodged against the defacto complainant in January 2026. The learned counsel would also submit that notice has been served on the defacto complainant in this matter, and none has appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the police officials.
5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal petition and submitted that, as of now, except for recording the oral statements of the victim and other witnesses, the Investigating Officer has not been able to collect any videos or photographs from the petitioner.
6. In light of the submissions made before this Court, prima facie, it appears that this case was lodged against the petitioner after the theft case had been registered against the de facto complainant. In that view, the Criminal Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of the BNS / Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1, Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam and Md.Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand2, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner/accused shall submit his cell phone to the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation as and when required. ii. The petitioner/accused shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer every fortnight, i.e., on every 2nd and 4th Sunday, between 10:00 a.m. and 05:00 p.m., until the conclusion of the investigation.
1(2014) 8 SCC 273 2(2023) 8 SCC 632
iii. If any incriminating material is unearthed during the course of the investigation against the petitioner, supporting the allegations made against him, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
___________________________________
DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 21.04.2026 S D P
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2943 OF 2026 21.04.2026
W S D P