ORDER : Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/Sole Accused for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.99 of 2025 of Parvathipuram Town Police Station, Parvathipuram Manyam District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 69 & 88 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant reported that the she used to stay in Railway New Colony, Visakhapatnam by doing a job in real estate. She met the accused through Instagram. The accused made false promise to marry and in the guise of the same, he made sexual intercourse with her several times in her room at Railway New Colony, in OYO rooms at Railway New Colony, at Satyam Junction and in a room, Rama talkies area in Visakhapatnam, and also in her house at Kothavalasa of Parvathipuram town. Later, she got pregnancy. The accused caused miscarriage of her pregnancy by giving tablets to her. Later, when the de facto complainant urged the accused to marry her, he denied. The accused, even, denied when the elders tried to convince him. Hence, the de facto complainant reported to the Police about the incident on 17.06.2025. A case was registered based on the said complaint given by the de facto complainant. 3. Sri Bonu Rama Shankar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence; he was falsely implicated in this case; he is the sole breadwinner of his family; he is ready to abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Manthri Rahul Patnaik vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Petition No.6895 of 2025, dated 11.07.2025 and argues that the instant case also is on the same footing and urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that investigation is not yet completed; if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, he will repeat the same offence. 4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that investigation is not yet completed; if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, he will repeat the same offence. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the de facto complainant/respondent No.2 got pregnancy through the petitioner and when she was informed the same to the petitioner, the petitioner suggested her to get it aborted and gave some tablets for abortion. Later, the respondent No.2 got aborted. The facts and circumstances of Manthri Rahul Patnaik’s case supra are distinguishable and cannot be applied to the instant case and urged to dismiss the bail petition. 5. Sri Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2 also reiterates the submissions of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record. 7. As seen from the record, the petitioner is aged about 31 years and the de facto complainant/respondent No.2 is aged about 26 years. Both are fully grown, both are working and they are educated. Because of love and affection in between them, they met physically on several occasions. Later, respondent No.2 got pregnancy. When she informed the same to the petitioner, the petitioner suggested her to get it aborted and gave some tablets. As the respondent No.2 consumed those tablets, the pregnancy got aborted. Even though, the respondent No.2 requested the petitioner to marry her, the petitioner did not oblige her request on the pretext that his mother and sister do not agree for marriage. As mentioned supra in Manthri Rahul Patnaik’s case, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no instance of the victim therein got pregnancy and it was aborted at the instance of the petitioner therein. As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the facts and circumstances of Manthri Rahul Patnaik’s case and the instant case are distinguishable on facts and the ratio laid down by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court cannot be followed, as there are no merits in this criminal petition for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, there are specific overt acts leveled against the petitioner, he is disentitled to get pre-arrest bail. 8. In view of the above, there are specific overt acts leveled against the petitioner, he is disentitled to get pre-arrest bail. Hence, this Court does not deem it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to grant liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate concerned and move an appropriate application for his release before the learned Magistrate concerned. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and move an appropriate application before the learned Court concerned for enlarging him on bail. The learned Court shall endeavor to dispose of the application on its own merits in accordance with law by giving due and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the learned Public Prosecutor before the learned Court concerned and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time, preferably in two (02) days.