Prior Relationship Between Accused and Complainant Can’t Be Ignored While Considering Bail: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Blackmail and Rape Case

“Fourteen-Month Delay in FIR, Live-in Relationship Admitted—Custody No Longer Necessary for Investigation” — In a case involving serious allegations of sexual assault, criminal intimidation, and financial exploitation, the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 19 September 2025 granted conditional bail to the accused Bellani Surendra, while acknowledging the complexity of the relationship between the complainant and the accused. The Court noted that the complainant had admitted to a long-standing live-in relationship and business association with the accused, thereby creating factual nuances that diluted the presumption of guilt at the bail stage.

Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao ruled that continued detention was unwarranted, given the progress of investigation, the nature of the allegations, and the admitted past relationship between the parties.

“Admitted Live-in Relationship Between Petitioner and Complainant—Allegations Must Be Viewed in Totality”

The Court was dealing with a bail application under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner had been in custody since 18 July 2025, for offences alleged under Sections 318(4), 64(1)(m), 76, 115(2), 351(3) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

According to the prosecution, the complainant was induced to start a beautician training society on promise of government grants, then repeatedly sexually assaulted and blackmailed over a period of months. She allegedly gave over ₹33 lakhs under coercion and threat of release of compromising photos.

However, as the Court observed:

“Indeed, the instant FIR was lodged on 14.07.2025, nearly fourteen months after the alleged offence on 12.05.2024.”

And critically:

“Even in her statement, the de-facto complainant admits that there was a live-in relationship between her and the petitioner.”

The Court acknowledged that such admission by the complainant alters the lens through which the allegations must be assessed at the bail stage.

“Custody Not Required for Further Investigation—Petitioner Already in Jail for 68 Days”

Weighing the period already spent in custody and progress in investigation, the Court noted:

“The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 68 days... seven witnesses have been examined so far... material portion of the investigation, insofar as it concerns the petitioner... has been substantially completed.”

The Court also considered that the complainant had previously been named in a counter-complaint by the accused’s mother, lodged on 26.06.2025—well before the FIR in the present case. That case was registered as Crime No. 250 of 2025 under Sections 329(4), 324(4), and 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the BNS.

The sequence of cross-allegations added complexity, prompting the Court to observe:

“Considering... the nature and gravity of the allegations, the relationship that existed for some time between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant, and the period of detention... this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail.”

Bail Granted With Seven Strict Conditions

The Court allowed the bail application but imposed seven stringent conditions to ensure the integrity of the ongoing investigation:

1. Furnishing bail bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties.
2. Weekly appearance at the Mahila Urban Police Station, Vijayawada every Saturday.
3. Restricted movement—accused cannot leave district without permission.
4. Absolute restraint from committing any offence.
5. Mandatory cooperation with the investigating officer.
6. No inducement, threat or promise to witnesses.
7. Surrender or affidavit regarding possession of passport.

These conditions were tailored to balance the petitioner’s right to liberty with the needs of justice.

Balances Liberty and Due Process

The ruling reflects a cautious but rights-sensitive approach to pre-trial detention. The Court clarified that bail does not mean exoneration, but underscores that personal liberty cannot be sacrificed merely on the strength of accusations when other factors like relationship history, delay in lodging FIR, and absence of flight risk weigh in favour of the accused.

“This Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail... subject to the following stringent conditions.”

The decision is expected to guide future cases involving allegations arising from broken relationships, where complainants and accused had prior mutual trust, financial entanglements, or intimate association.

Date of Decision: 19.09.2025