Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/2418/2026 of GONELA SWAMY ALIAS SWAROOP Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 5 April 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2418/2026 Between: 1. GONELA SWAMY ALIAS SWAROOP, S/O.
APHC010156182026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2418/2026
Between:
1. GONELA SWAMY ALIAS SWAROOP, S/O. KRISHNA AGED 34
YEARS, R/O. D NO. 6-114, SIVALAYAM BACKSIDE, NAWABPET, PENUGANCHIPROLU MANDAL, NTR (KRISHNA) DISTRICT, R/O.
NAYARA PETROL BUNK, ATKURU VILLAGE, KRISHNA DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATI
THROUGH
THE
STATION
HOUSE
OFFICER
ATUKURU POLICE STATION, NTR (KRISHNA) DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. UDAY KUMAR VAMPUGADAVALA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2418 OF 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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 Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No.112 of 2025 on the file of Atukuru Police Station, NTR District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused herein for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 137(2) of BNS and Section 4 of POCSO Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused who is aged about 34 years married man developed acquaintance with the victim minor girl, aged about 16 years through church activities. He lured her to Gannavaram on 27.10.2025, sexually assaulted her under false promise of marriage and took her on a trip to various places.
3. Heard Mr.V.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. Perused the record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with clean antecedents and has never been involved in any criminal case previously. His implication in the present case is false and motivated. The petitioner has deep roots in society, is a permanent resident, and has verifiable employment; hence, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with prosecution witnesses. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 06.11.2025, and his continued incarceration is wholly unjustified, particularly when no prima facie material exists against him. The investigation has been completed, and the charge sheet has also been filed. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail.
5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposes the grant of bail, contending that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet was filed on 30.12.2025 within the prescribed time; therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to statutory bail. She further submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and urges that the bail petition be dismissed.
6. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that specific allegations have been made against the petitioner. The investigation has been completed, and the charge sheet has been filed within the statutory period; hence, the petitioner is not entitled to statutory bail. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail. This Court is also of the view that there is no material to presume that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence, and there is a likelihood that, if released on bail, he may threaten the victim. The petitioner was arrested on 06.11.2025 and has been in judicial custody since then.
7. In view of the above, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he has not committed the alleged offence. There are no merits in the Criminal Petition seeking grant of bail. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________
DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 06.04.2026 S D P
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2418 OF 2026 06.04.2026
S D P