Investigating Officer Must Be Given 'Free-Hand' While Probing Case Involving Serious Allegations: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that in a case containing serious allegations, the Investigating Officer (IO) deserves a free hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao further observed that,

“The investigating officer, who has been prevented from subjecting the petitioner to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful in finding prima facie substance in the grave allegations. The possibility of the investigation being effected once the petitioner is released on bail is very much foreseen. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail.”

The Court was hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner was charged under Sections 417 (Punishment for cheating), 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), and 376(2)(n) (Punishment for rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Background

Initially, the complaint was filed by a divorced woman who had posted her bio-data in a WhatsApp group looking for a suitable match for a second marriage. The petitioner/accused came into contact with her expressing interest in marrying her. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner/accused sent nude photographs of men and women in compromising positions to her, despite her resistance and continuously stalked her. On 07.12.2023, he lured her to his house in Visakhapatnam under the pretext of showing her his first wife's gold ornaments. The complainant claimed that the petitioner then forcibly committed rape on her without her consent, further threatening her not to inform anyone about the incident. Subsequently, on 08.12.2023, he communicated that he no longer wished to marry her and began to evade her calls.

The petitioner argued that he was being falsely implicated and further contended that, as a public servant (defined under Section 21 of IPC/Section 28 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), the petitioner's arrest would likely result in his suspension. However, the Court observed that mere assertion by the petitioner that he is a public servant and the potential for suspension upon arrest, does not amount to a valid ground for granting bail. In deciding whether to grant bail in a non-bailable offence, the Court must consider, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the offence committed by the accused.

While the petitioner also referenced a precedent case wherein anticipatory bail was granted, the Court noted that “the mere fact of anticipatory bail being granted in another case does not set a precedent for every case.” Each case must be evaluated on its unique facts.

Court said that in the current case, given the serious nature of the complaints, including allegations of rape and the potential for hindering the investigation, it was not convinced to grant anticipatory bail.

Additionally, it said that the material placed on record, prima facie, established a case under Section 376 of the IPC. The Court reiterated the established legal principle that anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule but it “should only be given when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances warrant such an extraordinary remedy.” Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

Case Details:

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1532/2025

Case Name: Pvhv Gopala Sarma v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Date of Judgment: 06.03.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order