Bail Granted to Accused in Alleged Extortion and Sedation Racket: 67 Days in Custody, Key Witnesses Examined: Andhra Pradesh High Court Allows Bail with Stringent Conditions

“Considering the nature of allegations, stage of investigation, and period of detention undergone, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail” — AP High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court granted regular bail to Batchu Venu Bhaskar Reddy alias Chinna, Accused No.2 in a sensational case involving extortion, criminal confinement, attempted strangulation, sedative drug administration, and digital fraud, after he spent 67 days in judicial custody.

Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, while passing the bail order, acknowledged the gravity of the charges, but noted that the material portion of investigation had been completed, and fourteen prosecution witnesses had already been examined. Accordingly, the Court decided to grant bail under stringent conditions, ensuring both the accused’s availability and the protection of the investigation’s integrity.

“Victim Was Lured, Drugged, Isolated, and Defrauded — Alleged Criminal Conspiracy Between Accused Duo to Extract Money”

According to the prosecution, the case stems from Crime No. 466 of 2024 registered at Muvvalavanipalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. The complainant, currently residing in Kolkata for medical treatment, alleged that in 2019, while working at CIITS Office in Visakhapatnam, he was introduced to the accused by a co-worker, Joy Jemima.

The FIR details a series of shocking events: The accused allegedly stole two mobile phones of the complainant, manipulated him into believing he was being blackmailed, coerced him into paying a hacker, and forcibly took him to Araku under false pretenses. They are said to have stolen his debit card, accompanied him to the bank, gained access to his PIN, and illegally confined and assaulted him at a rented house behind Bullayya College.

The prosecution also claimed that the complainant was forced to fund expensive purchases, including seafood and clothing, and was subjected to intimidation and attempted strangulation.

“Petitioner is a Repeat Arrestee but Cooperated with Investigation” — Defence Argues No Need for Further Custodial Interrogation

Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, argued that the accused was being falsely implicated, is the sole breadwinner, and has no intent to abscond. He emphasized that the petitioner had cooperated with the police, was already arrested and released in three earlier instances between November 2024 and June 2025, and had a permanent residence in Srikakulam District.

“There exists no apprehension of absconding or tampering with evidence. The nature of the allegations does not necessitate further custodial interrogation,” submitted the defence.

“Enlargement at This Stage May Jeopardize Probe” — State Opposed Bail Citing Risk of Witness Tampering and Flight

On the other hand, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, appearing for the State, opposed the bail plea, stating:

“The investigation is at a nascent and critical stage… Releasing the petitioner now would threaten the sanctity of the process.”

She warned that the petitioner may intimidate witnesses or influence the evidentiary foundation, frustrating the ongoing investigation.

However, the Court found that with fourteen witnesses already examined and the core investigative acts completed, a blanket denial of bail was no longer warranted.

“Judicial Custody of 67 Days + Completion of Material Investigation = Bail Justified” — High Court Balances Liberty and Investigation

In a detailed order, Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao held: “Considering the nature and gravity of allegations, role of the petitioner, and period of detention undergone, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with stringent conditions.”

The Court also referred to the fact that a prior pre-arrest bail plea (Crl.P. No. 6182 of 2025) was rejected, indicating that the present order was not casual but based on evolved circumstances.

Conditions Imposed: Saturday Appearances, Passport Surrender, and No Witness Tampering

To safeguard the prosecution and prevent evasion, the Court imposed strict conditions, including:

• Execution of a ₹25,000 bond with two sureties.

• Weekly appearances at the police station every Saturday.

• A ban on leaving Andhra Pradesh without permission.

• No interference with witnesses or repetition of offences.

• Passport surrender or affidavit if none exists.

• Full cooperation with investigation.

These conditions are crafted to ensure monitoring and accountability while granting the accused temporary liberty.

Date of Decision: 23 September 2025