. ``ng`.`.~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH, ,i;#±#± TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: I HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2756 OF 2025 •¥.fa*i--=i:_I-i:i Betwee n : 1. Smt.Ravela Padma, W/o. Deaya Rao, aged 58 years, Occ Coolie, R/o. Mukkamala(V), Tadikonda(M), Guntur District. 2. Ravela Salman Raju, S/o. Daya Rao aged 34 years, Occ Coolie, R/o. MukkamalaIV), Tadikonda(M), Guntur District. 3. Smt Ravela Mounica, W/o. Saloman aged 32 years, Occ Coolie, R/o. Mukkamala(V), Tadikonda(M),'Guntur District. 4. Ravela Abraham, S/o. Daya Rao aged 33 years, Occ Coolie, R/o. Mukkamala(V), Tadikonda(M), Guntur District ...Petitioner/Accused 2 to 5 AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravathi through SHO, Tadikonda Police Station, Guntur Dist., ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal Petitl|on, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Police to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.2 to 5 on Bail in the event of their Arrest pursuant to FIR No.9/2025 on the file of the SHO, Tadikonda Police Station, Guntur District forth with. Counsel forthe Petitioners : Srl-Srin'lvasulu Kurra Counsel for the Respondent : Assistant Public Prosecutor. The Court made the following ORDER: _ _ _ -___ _____ __ _r___7 / APHCO10128472025 E!iE lN THE HIGH C.OURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2756/2025 Between : Ravela Padma and Others AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. SRINIVASULU KURRA [3369] ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: 1) This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023 (for short, lBNSS') is filed on behalf of the petitioners/Accused N'os.2 to 5 seeking anticipatory bail in Cr`ime No.09 of 2025 of Tadikonda Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85,108 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, lBNS'). 2) The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the deceased died an unnatural death due to hanging on 16.01.2025 at approximately 10:30 AM at her residence in Mukkamala village. The incident was reported to the police station on the same day by the deceased'§ mother. She stated that her son-in- `. .` ts`,_I law informed her of her daughter's death by hanging. upon arriving at Mukkamala village with her felatives, they found the deceased lying on the ground, already dead. The mother suspected the deceased's death and submitted a written report, requesting an investigation to determine the actual cause of death. Initially, the crime was registered under section 194 of the BNSS. However, during the course of the investigation, the police altered the charges to Sections 85,108, and 3(5) of the BNS. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners/A.2 to A.5 contends that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated, though they were living separately from them. There are no specific allegations of harassment for dowry or otherwise, except for a bald and omnibus statement by the deceased's mother, made after the incI'dent, Claiming harassment. The petitioners are daily labourers and struggle to make ends meet, fearing arrest. The police have completed their investigation and are waiting to file the charge sheet. There is no need for custodial interrogation, as the petitioners are willing to cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, anticipatory bail is sought' 4) On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent/State, opposes the grant of anticipatory baI'l On the ground that the investigation is still pending. 5) I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the Petition as well as in the Report. Consequently, the contentions presented by the learned counsel need not be reproduced. 6) In Mah,-pa/ V. Rat-eSh1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is necessary for the Co.urt while considering a bail application, to assess whether, based on the evidentiary record, pr,'m.a fac,-e or reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused had committed the crime. 1 (2020)2SCC118 a Gfyrf-' \.o 7) It is settled law that While considering the prayer for grant OfantiCiPatOry I/ bail, the accusation's nature and gravity and the accused's exact role must be properly comprehended before arrest is made. lf there is some doubt as to the genuineness of the Prosecution, the ordinary COurSe Of events iS that the accused is entitled to an order Of antiCiPatOry bail. The Court must adequately exercise its jurisdiction to protect the personal liberty of a citizen. lt is also a well_accepted Principle that bail iS the rule and the jail is the exception. Arrest should be the last OPtiOn, and it Should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative based on the facts and circumstances of that case. 8) ln Rakesh Baban Borhade Vs. State of Maharashtra and another2, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that: ''AnticiPatOry bail not to be granted aS a matter Of rule but should be granted only when a Case iS made Out and the Court is convinced that the accused would not misuse his liberty". 9) ln light Of the above Settled legal principles, the rival contentions raised on behalf of both sides will be appreciated to decide the entitlement of the petitioners to get the relief of anticipatory bail. 10) To attract the Offence under Section lO8 of BNS, there should be instigation or abetment on the part of the accused. lt is apt to have a look at section 108 of BNS, which reads thuS'. ¢108. Abetment Of Su®ICide-if any Person commits Syi_CiC!e, vyhOeVer .ab?tS..i.he 66rilmiSS-IOn Of Such Suicide, Shall be _punished with irPPriS9.nTent. Of. eifher -drgScription for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.I ll) Learned COunSel for the Petitioners submits that the material placed on record does not show that the accused abetted the commission of suicide. lt is also submitted that to bring home of offence under Section 108 of BNS, the 2 2015 SAR (Criminal) 156 czz3ZiZZZZ- \ 4 prosecu{lon has to show that the accused abetted the deceased and there must be a clear mens res to £omml-I the offence. 12) As per the observations made ln A4.«oAan v. sfafe of ram,-/nadr3, :huI::edmeeal:oguwrilthhe\Indgar=d:::teSr Of See;Ion :;:':Vf'I':nC (V; o:toafteB NO: )#i:oan:bul3= supreme court held as under.I 'p:e:®funorfre1;^uO^:A:;snc;:uapnulaocucs:yseedxag%IIl:ye ::ea:a:i:seannC: ^u,nr^d.:: fl:ctIOn 306 of I pc, the ca`::::; I:: :Res_tsJSS jtrhuep u: : :u;s!yi :e:x aUa#::uyec O£deab:eafoco::eena ;e? nuc ::dcr ; ;_:fie?cnt .::ens 3o; P hoef :: sc: tanned a:,;u;Ae!;nySaS:;n;^ds a;ah r;a :esv::e:nt;::;d!df :Cocu:;:teobTteahfC::ve:;i,d;;:acrA:e;_rSntt;:i:neds oof;ttir;h;:ats%: r:t:hoe car!u;:ea:;nyaaA:I:A::h_b;urtatSoS:oe#mjtJ::u-:££eetut;i;h:::;:c!:It:nn hhO=rddL;A:_ft;:hf:nVdl C:I u: wWlirhJt:foe r:i;h;leer a:fe%aea!v^aenj ebtLu; :0?.i CoOfm!muII;:;ui lu:h:: rLe;i I;euas;:co;I:: nbhrea^d^bf:er^ft: :_h!emvIInC:I Th :;Iti;: `n:o::oetl£orf =:;:If£ee.:.e±!:tLt: e :.: OOF csou;£:Iu:hone re;f :su;::::a:o pbreo^o;f^o.:^nf, IdnI ::: do :hla;i;;I;:Ci sUa:c:;Co!ff I nh`Ca!;r:,sgre;n:_a_ttoy I:hh : ut;;h;i::ICs:s:;n:Cg' eoafnmvsuusDIt::sb:te:\, : rOafft:A::i ly; I roenCt ton;e I-;d!; ;e;gc;a;;ocOnt u::f ho;c:ca:S^c;e;. _; ht: :i -pt-ah i';e:i-£h;e:ga:;nuysseup:oc:i:::h a#;or:^l_yp_rpoxnl mtahtee i;o; ; ;h;e=tt;:: euO!ff occoc% r%tnscueI C;dne ,i hceo nPv:crft I OO: ;tin '::i::yosfePsdueS:f!V:cenh QalnCe;:o^no, r,phcr:%£;eedt :hte;e; :tr;i;envi: 1~.3: u ::e;uMmcIItd:au;I;:ddnet:hCneO nveVIsCs:etn:i::ea4t:::ua::tr::fo:::e:%:_O:,::6deon?::a:tneh:I:::nI:Pba:berlseo::p:e m e court, elucldated the essentla' lngredlents of the offence under section 306 'pc (108 of BNS) jn the fo'lowl'ng observatl'ons.I ":) tThheeaebsestemn:lnatl. Ingredients of the offence under section 306 lPC are (i) the abetment; (;;!s#nh§It!nhS;u;:§\Itl:ace:^:nfh~:h_a:ctacocfutsheedatcocua:ded;rhlon#:3,:ire ,:: , :,b_e_i fpe deceased to cuTOsh%ne#:tasbshuuo::;:ee;aoTnahg`e:rdai^gcn:^-oSjt-}nceout£Lcubcyua;taesdeff;h loch:#:sgvt;ttru:i:no;hua!t;nleg; ;tfh± _i_: ::.: ::g #Oy uTsShfnec:heaasbnftu?s!;:en I;:;e;:u!;1gS : I !':nCpoataj!yuoS;tessae:lg:aoce#tn;:vtn;tr!#:an+:thuh:i: na_gb_ith: j%-coCefaa:s;eic I fbt: T`>hnuesc!h:gaas:h;ootn:;;nb:a:jgme:ai;+tip-n^ecve:^:::c_a!;Oaa[sj:bedy:!tssce:lg%g%tt£s:;#tcfhfeaet{tih;;'Ia!aub.Ce.:;::hseS_Iu?#feaS:.ued:ec#dbe:y Pn;,:th:gva:Off;:i:ol;n:s:ttfg#!enit_-I;: ic;oucF%u::c IScduoegmga#e;tlI:snuagltC;:h:£e: ;JtenLI-:irsi:;i;h:-:'{t; :ut!eeSnd#eCn:taseb:f I nc :i:gv:ct:::/: :detei es;et:lil;o :3OuomC6fi#cuS #;:c ICdOema::i ssualt;::IeedUtnhl i :::tc;u:s;e;d; :a:lax:eenna:tsD:]e convicled u nder se-criI-O;id: 'l';cS.:, 14) Deallng wlth the prov,sIOns of Sectlon 306 IPC (108 of BNS) and the meanlng of abetment wlthln the meanJng of Sectfon 107 of 'pc (45 of BNS), the Hon'ble supreme court observed ln Afadan Mohan s,-ngh v. sfafe of GuifaraF, that|. 'l :ns2te:n:I:n::din;I;a;i,enbd~rln_bgLy _Os::cat:onoffleOn7Cel ;ncdeornstehcptIOnna :0:I I FLO_ speclfIC abetment =nstecnot:ot : Top lbartlendg adrbyo uStitcit:6 n: : :-cfdi: Io;f%heeornDS:e::set:onpnar;: ;!lrfinh;JSaPcecC:f:ce da b#t# e :1n i ntention to bri n6 ;;ouvt-tu;:I:u i::die loPf:h eon#seonpac:nc::rtnhj£.Yc.-cu^:i_ concerned as a result -;i t;;i _ -`-` ' \^I I a-------3 3(2011)3SCC626 4 (2019) 3 SCC 315 5 (2010) 8 SCC 628 abetment is required. The intenti_O_n. Of the aCC.UES_e_du_t?_ a_i_dA?_r..I?rin^Sttt!gha^tbe ,?nrHtaO, aawffe'; I;I:Ld:;:aYsu:i ig :;i, i,-ii-5;;ii_de is a. T u St..for tLP i_s._P?_rf~I_C:Ia~:.?I,:^nnce^fu+nhdberra agec:t;:n-:5gi uii€:vie -i;;5--a; irfe clear _opiP.ion !h^a^t.tnh3r9 :!S _n~o:_q,uLe^StE:3 o^fr :£e+rhea og=e;;I;'=nu;vm'=tev;i;I'fvor-a-ffih;6 ir;der s6ction 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note." The Court noted that the Suicide rote expressed ?__ Slt2f_S~o:f_,a_n_2u^ihs^hI O^fn tthhea _ __ :__I____1:-I--I --I.L~- the the Gu/. F/R I lIC3 \J\J|JI\ \|\r|\+\* ~.`_--_-_ 'd£ceva::i ='nvi-I:c;-;;a;-die depicted as.exPr??sing _ e!yt_h.ip_g: J rf,en±i^3?^a,I^3nn^ udrutifvt-h;-riccii6-a_ jth.at the.-p_e,pe?se.!^,T ig^h,i pS?Tr=!t s.uni:IEde:-r_Rr_evnenr:::g luaaLg:;;'r [dii;i€_-M-di.rfEi siplgLP_ I-..StJa^t= :O^f^,S^u!aAr2t: \39.o8£IISh€,2H 9:5i#heF 'gu6g8j'£f'{`h±''drih-'b;;ir: fire -Petition under Sectioh 482 was allowed and the was quashed. l5) ln Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar V. State Of Madhya Pradesh6,the_ Hon'ble Apex Court held that even if the Case Of the Prosecution iS accepted that appellant told the deceased to go and die that itself does not constitute the ingredients of instigation. 16) ln Nlohit Singhal and another V. State of Uttarakhand and OtherS7, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the accused must have mews rea tO instigate the deceased to comm|[t suicide. The act of 'lnStigat'lOn must be 'lntenSity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she, has no choice, but to comm'[t suic'lde. such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide. 17) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case Of Gangu/a Mohan Reddy V. sfafe of A.P.,8, held that clear mens rea tO commit Offence must be Present for proving the abetment of suicide. lt held as under: "20. Abetment involves a mental process Of inStigati?P a Per,son ?: :nt_e_nrO^n,a,I!y^ aLiVii;;V;';:;:;-; i-; -i;ing of a triing. with.pyt a po.si.i_i,v_e a_c^t_::n^t:^h: p^aarfnno^ftthhea a::::s:dri;;;-s{;a;ti-5r aid in -committing s¥icid?, copyi,cti,?n,:aJT.:: ^b_:I u:;;t=;;ei.; i;:-5;upreme court also held that it iS not POSSible to lay down any formula in dealing with such cases. 18) The word 'Iinstigate" denotes incitement Or urging tO dO some drastic Or 'lnadvisable action or to stimulate or inc-lte. presence of mens tea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of 'lnstigation. 6 2002(5) SCC 379 7 criminal Appeal No.3578 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023 8 AIR2010SC327 v*----)`=Ta 6 19) The allegation against the petitioners/A.2 to A.5 (who are in-laws of the \ deceased) I'S that they harassed the deceased, urging her to die so that A.1 could pursue a second marriage, and also pressured her to works. The report indicates that the deceased frequently informed her parents about the actions of the Petitioners. However, a prima facie readl'ng of the report does not establish any direct or proximate actl'ons by the petitioners that would have reasonably compelled the deceased to take her own life. 20) The material placed prima facie does not show that there was goading Or SOliCitatiOn Or insinuation by any Of the Petitioners to the deceased to commit suicide. The material placed also does not show that the petitioners either aided or abetted or instigated by direct or indirect means to commit suicide by the deceased. 21) The Honlble Apex Court in Kahhashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. Sfafe of B,-harp, held as follows: 18. "The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of impI-ICating relatives Of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, ` if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them". 22. "Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appeIIants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court -In Varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged." 9 MANU/SC/O163/2022 _ :3rf- c,ir, 22) ln K. St,boa Rao a off,ers v. Sfafe of Te/anganalO, the Hon'ble Apex J~ Court held thus: 5. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interiocutory stage unless there is an abuse of the process of a court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan LaI [State of Haryana v. Bhajan LaI, MANU/SC/0115/1992]. The courts should be careful in Proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. see Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [MANU/SC/0296/2000] and Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P. [(2014) 16 SCC 551] 23) ln light of the decisions referenced above and takl'ng into account the fact that the Petitioners are the in-laws of the deceased, it is important to note that the possibility of implicating the Petitioners in the commission of the offence cannot be ruled out at this stage. 24) ln view of the foregoing discussion, without expressing any opinion regarding the applicability of the section 108 of BNS (306 of lPC), this Court is satisfied that reasonable grounds exist to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners. 25) As a result, the Criminal Petition is a//owed by granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioners subject to their surrender before the Station House Officer, Tadikonda Police Station, Guntur District, within two (2) week from today. On such surrender, the Petitioners shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. Upon their release, the Petitioners are mandated to adhere to the following conditions: i. On such release, the Petitioners/A.2 to A.5 are directed to appear before the concerned investigating officer, twice in a week i.e., on 10 MANu/SC/O880/2018 . . . \\ 'i=E I 8 every sunday and vyednesday between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m., for a perlod of three (o3) months or tm flljng the charge sheet, whichever l's earll®er,a and The petjtjoners/A.2 to l'nducement, threat or A.5 shall not, dI'reCtly or I-ndl'rectly, make any ___v.u,Ill, LIIIt=aL Or Promise to any person acqual'nted with the facts of the case so as to dl'ssuade them from dI'SCIOSing such facts to the court or to any lnvestl'gatl'ng or poll'ce officer and sha" cooperate wl'th the l'nvestI'gatI-ng officer. 26) Nothl'ng stated above sha" be construed as a f,hal expression ofopl'njon on the merits of the case, and the trial wm proceed independently of the observatI'OnS made ln the present case, whl'ch are only for adjudicatI-ng the Present baI'l aPPll'Catl-on. Miscellaneous applications pendl'ng, if any, sha" stand closed. To, 1. 2. 3. //TRUE COPY// F ASSISTANT sD/- K.SRINIVASA RAJU l\ --_ _ ISTRAR f6t\f ,-c_: : TDhneeSctgtitoon sH::ssr:n?,=:=r' :adlkOTda po"ce station, Guntur District, one cc to srl' srl'nl'vasulu Kurra, Advocate [opucJ Two cos to publl-c prosecutor (AP) Hlgh court ofAndhra pradesh [OUT] 4. One spare copy CVSS I-+ L- .JS y'gseesseRE# _ :tw . ..-.I. .,.` HIGH COURT TMRIJ DATED :24/03/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.2756 of 2025 ALLOWED