IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ..+i.. FRIDAY, THE TivENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH;,'l;: TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYFIVE "= .IPRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3096 OF 2025 Betwee n : 1. Ummidi Bharath Kumar, s/o. ummjdi venkata Rao, Aged 41 years, R/o. D.No.32-20-851, Atchiyammapeta, Alll-puram, Near school, Atchiyammapeta, visakhapatnam urban, vI'Sakhapatnam District. 2. Umml'di Gopi @ ummidi Gopinath, s/o. ummidl| venkata Rao, Aged 40 years, R/o. D.No.32-20-851, AtchI-yammapeta, AIIipuram, Near School, Atch,'yammapeta, vI'Sakhapatnam Urban, visakhapatnam District. Petitioners/Accused No. 3 & 4 AND The State Of Andhra pradesh, Rep. By its public Prosecutor, High court at Amaravathl', Through sub-Inspector of police, " Town police Stall-On, Vl'sakhapatnam Distrl'ct. Respondents/complainant petitI'On under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./482 of BNSS,, I'S filed praying that in the circumstances stated I-n the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminalpetition, the High court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioners/accused No.3 & 4 on antjcipatory bail in connectI-On tO Crime No.49/2025 on the file of the " Town police stall-On, Vl'sakhapatnam commissionerate, dt.o7.03.2025 in the event of arrest The petjtjon coming on for hearl'ng, upon perusI'ng the Petit,Ion and the memorandum of grounds filed I-n Support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA, Advocate for the petI'tl'OnerS and of public Prosecutor for the Respondent; The Court made the followI-ng.- APHCO10145202025 lN THE H'GH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ' ATAMARAVATl (special or-IginaI Jurisd-lotion) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RAO c RI M I N'AJ±EI!I!g±!±!Qi±Q9S±2g2! Betwee n : I ummidi Bharath Kumar and Others AND TheStateOfAndhraPradesh , counsel for the Petit'loner/accused(S)-. 1. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA [3369] ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT counsel for the Respondent/COmPlainant-. 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the follow-Ing ORDER-. 1. The Cr-lminal Petit-ton, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023 (for Short, lBNSSI) is filed On behalf Of the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 to grant antiC'lPatOry ba" 'ln COnneCtiOn With Crime No.49/2025 of " Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. 2. A case has been registered,against the Petitioner herein and Others for the offence pun'lshable under sections 108, 351(3) I/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sahhita, 2023 (for short, lBNS'). 3. The ProsecutiOn'S Case, in brief, iSthatOn 06.03.2025 at 10:30 PM, the complainant, husband of the deceased suguna, reported an 'lncident at the',r home, which was filed on o7.03.2025 at 10'.00 AM. The comPlainant Stated ``-`-a `=-+i 6fZ5SZ3 I E that his wife had borrowed Rs.1,00,000/-from a marginally noted accused and ~/ had been paying Rs.20,000/- per monthl aS interest. The loan was later cleared, but the accused escalated the loan amount tO Rs.30,00,000/-, citing compound interest. The accused also threatened tO ruin the family'S reputat'IOn and harm the husband if the'debt Was not repaid. Additionally, A.2 borrowed Rs.1,00,000/-from the A.1 'ln the name Of the deceased and pressured her to pay the interest. on o6.03.2025, the cOmPlainant kept Rs.1,00,000/-in the house, went tO the Fishing Harbour, and returned at 8:00 pM. He found the accused at his home, but his Wife Was missing. When questioned, they claimed she hadn't repaid the loan. The complainant noticed Rs.1,00,000/-was missing and sent the accused away, Stating his Wife had gone to their house. At 10:00 PM, unable to reach his Wife, he COnlacted the A.1, who confirmed his wife hadn't arrived there. After 1 O minutes, he received a phone call from them stating that his Wife COmm'ltted Suicide tO the Ceiling fan in their house. Immediately, he along with his brother-in-law rushed to spot at 10.45 PM and noticed his wife Was found hanging tO Ceiling fan and hence he lodged report that the unable to bear the torture/harassment mounted by accused, deceased took extreme step of committed suicide in accused house and ended her life. 4. The learned counsel for the Petit'loners contends that the Petitioners deny the false allegations made by the COmP]ainant, Stating nO evidence links them to the crime. The complainant'S actions are motivated by Personal grudges and intent to harass. The petit'lonerS have nO Criminal history, having a fixed abode, and are wiII'lng to provide Sureties, posing nO risk Of evidence tampering. . 5- On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the RespondenVState, opposes the grant Of antiCiPatOry bail On the ground I that the investigation -IS Still Pending. __i,---I,-i -- `-i- `=ed ir +++ ++ r\+-+/+ + +i / 6. I have heard Sri N. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel representing sri` Chall Ajay Kumar, learned c6unsel for the petI'tiOnerS and leaned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent-State. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in th.e Petition as well as in the Report. Consequently, the contentions Presented by the learned COunSel need not be reproduced. 7. In Mah,-pa/ V. Ra/-es4I, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is necessary for the Court while considering a bail application, to assess whether, based on the evidentiary record, pr,'ma rae,'e or reasonable grounds exist to believe that I the accused had committed the crime. 8. ln Rakesh Baban Borhade Vs. State of Maharashtra and another2, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that: "Antjcipatory bail not to be granted as a matter of rule but should be granted only when a case i: made out and the Court is convinced that the accused would not misuse his liberty". 9. ln Mohit Singhal and another v. State of uttarakhand and others3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the accused must have mens res to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position`under which he or she, has no choice, but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suici'de. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gangu/a Mohan Reddy V. Sfafe of A.P.,4, 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 instigation a person or intent-lonally aiding a person in doing of a th-Ing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committ-Ing Suicide, (2020) 2 SCC 118 2015 SAR (Criminal) 156 Criminal Appeal No.3578 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023 AIR 2010 SC 327 copvictior! cannot be sustained." The Supreme Court also held that it is not possible to lay down any formula in dealing with such cases. ll. The word llinstigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stI'mulate or incI|te. Presence of mews res, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. I 12, As per the observations made in M.Mohan v. Sfafe of ram,-/nac'tJ5, while dealing viith ingredI'entS Of Section 306 of lPC held as under: [Pefo_re hplding an accused guilty of an offence under section 306 of IPC, the Court must scrupulously ex-amine the facts and circumstances of the Case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the Victim with no other alternative, but to commit suicide. It is also to be bom in._mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of a.irect pr indirect act of -Incitement to the commissiJn of suicide. M-erely on the ?Ilegat.lop_ of_ harassment without there being any positive .abtion PrOXime.te .t9. the time Of OCCurrenCe On the Part Of tree aC6u:ed which led or co_appII_ed the person to commit suicide, c6nviction in terms of section 306 of IPC is not sustainable. 13- In light of the above settled legal principles, the rival contentions raised on behalf of both sides will be apprecl'ated to decide the entitlement of the I PetitI'OnerS tO get the relief of anticipatory bail. 14| The accusation against the petitioners/Accused is that the deceased, Suguna, the wife of the defacto complainant, borrowed amounts from the accused and another individual, v. Nookarathnam, allegedly borrowed Rs.1,00,000/-from the accused in the name of the deceased, who then exerted pressure on her to remit the interest. Despite clearance of loan amount, the accused demanded the defacto complainantJs wife to pay Rs.30,00,000/-towards interest. The primary allegations are directed at A.1 and A.2, who have been remanded to 'J-udiCial Custody. The Petitioners contend that the defacto complainant has fabricated this false case against them, as they are relatives of A.1. 5 (2011) 3 SCC 626 i3--==J| `-- y`-® 15. According to the prosecution, the deceased committed suicide at the I/ residence' of A.1 on 06.03.2025, around lO:00 PM, while the incident in question allegedly occurred at about o1 :30 PM on the same day. The defacto complainant's report states that upon arriving at his house around 08:00 PM, he noticed the presence of A.1, A.3, and one Raj Kumar. When he inquired about their presence, they reportedly informed him that the deceased had failed to repay the amount. Based on these allegations, it is difficult to assume, prima facie, that the petitioners abetted or assisted the deceased in committing suicide. Thus, the reading of the report prima facie does not show I any attribution against the Petitioners proximate to the time of occurrence which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. 16. lt is settled law that while cohsjdering the prayer for grant of antI'CiPatOry 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 arrest'lng the accused is imperative based on the facts and circumstances of that case. ` I 17. At this stage, there is no material to suggest that the Petitioners were accused of directly or indirectly inciting the Victim to commit Suicide. The material provided does not indicate any goading, solicitation, or suggestion by the petiti6ners, nor does 'lt show that they aided, abetted, or instigated the suicide in any way. 18. At this stage, it is somewhat difficult to prima faCie conclude that the Petitioners instigated the deceased tO commit Suicide by demanding repayment of a higher interest amount. This Court views that mere demanding iE 6 of the Petitioners to return the amount with interest cannot be considered as abetment or instigation to c6mmit suicide by the deceased, 19. At this stage, the allegations against the petitl'oners are subjected to the trial's outcome. lt is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper with the prosecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. 20- lt is not the prosecution's case that the petitioners did not cooperate wl'th the investigation, and they are not available for interrogation. There is no indI'CatiOn Of a likelihood that the petitioners would abscond from the jurl'sdiction of the court. T cooperate With the investi punitive nor preventative. intention of harming or eml not improbable. 21. Given the facts and cjrcu even if the Petitioners were gn apprehension for the Prosecution ers have expressed willingness to The object of the bail js neither of levying accusations- with the titioners through potential arrest js f the case, this court views that ]rrest bail, there cannot be any ey ivill tamper with the evidence. The material placed on record discloses that the petl'tioners have permanent abode. It l's not the Prosecution's case that the petitioners would flee away from the jurisdiction of the Court. The facts do not warrant custodial interrogation of the Petitioners in the nature of the accusations. Thus, there is a prima facie case in favour of the Petitioners. Granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioners would not impede the ongoing investI-gatiOn. Hence, if the Petitioners were released on bail by imposing conditions, it would safeguard the interest of the prosecution and it would meet the ends of justice. 22. After carefully considering the material, this court is satisfied that reasonable grounds exist to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/Accused. a:_ps:£s>ct _ - ---_ 23. As a result, the criminal Petition is a//owec'by granting anticipatory bail I to the Petitioners/A.3 and A.4 subject to their surrender before thle Investigating officer concern~ed within two (2) weeks from today. on such surrender, the petitioners shall be released on bail on theI'r furnI®Shing 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.3 and A.4 are directed to appear before the concerned investigating officer, twice in a week i.e., on every Sunday and wednesday between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m., for a period of three (o3) months or till filing the charge sheet, whichever I'S earlier; and I The PetitI'OnerS/A.3 and A.4 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Investigating or police offl'cer and shall cooperate With the investigating officer. 24. Nothl®ng stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and the trial will proceed independently of the observatl-ons made in the present case, whl'ch are only for adjudicating the Present bail application. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-M.§RIN ASSISTANT R TEAR //TRUE COPY// SEC"oN OFFICER Tol 1. The Station House Officer, II Town Police Statl'on, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, Visakhapatnam District. 2. One CC to Sri. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. One spare copy ~J - HIGH COURT TMR, J DATED :28/03/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.3O96 of 2025 ALLOWED i`iTii€;{:'iF: g#p RTI Tr . <~' . ..\t|S. •',: iiHFfflll