a, I lN THE HIGH COURT-OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT J/ WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF A TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3388 OF 2025 Betwee n : Pathlavath Balakrishna Naik, (A2) S/o Baddu Naik, aged 32 years. Agriculture, R/o 8-247, Kunkalagunta (v), Nekarikallu (m), ,Palnadu District, Guntur Judicl'al District, A.P., Pin 522 615 ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State, Rep. by its public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P at Amaravatl', through The Sub-Inspector of police, Nekarekallu Police Station Palnadu DjstrI'Ct, Guntur JudicI-al DI-StrI|Ct. ...Respondent/complainant Petition under section 48:2` 'of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (438 of Cr.P.C), praying» that I'n the Circumstances Stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criml-nal petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner / A.2 on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest and to direct the Respondent police to release him immediately on his apprehension tin the above Crime No. 49 of 2025 of Nekarikallu p.s., Guntur Judicial District within the jurisdiction of court of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopeti Guntur Judicial District. Counsel forthe petitioner : sri cH Nagendramu Counsel for the Respondent : public prosecutor. The Court made the following ORDER: APHCO10160802025 ::::FT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3388/2025 Betwee n : Pathlavath Balakrishna Naik The State AND [3369] ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.CH NAGENDRAMU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 1. The Criminal Petition, under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023 (for short, lBNSS') is filed on behalf of the petitioner/A.2 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.49/2025 of Nakrekal Police Station, Palnadu District. 2. Initially, a case was registered against the Petitioner and Others Of the offence under section 194 of the BNSS. During the investigation, the charge was altered to section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short lBNSl). 3. The Prosecution's case, ®ln brief, iS that the incident occurred On o9.03.2025 at approximately ll:00 AM in Papisettipalem v-Illage, Nakrekal \\- \lJ eeZ' \ MandaI. lt was reported at th.e police station on 10.03.2025 at around 9:00 PM by the complainant, who is th6 husband of the deceased. The complainant, a cycle mechanic residing in Guntur, would vis'lt his home in Papisettipalem once a week. On 09.03.2025 at around ll:00 AM, he received a phone call from his brother-in-law, Adam Basha, informing him that his wife (the deceased) had consumed pesticide. She was initially taken to GBR Hospital in Narasaraopet by Al and later shifted to NRI Hospital in Mangalagiri for better treatment. Unfortunately, she passed away on 10.03.2025 at 3:48 PM while undergoing treatment. The complainant has expressed suspicion regarding the involvement of the petitioner (A2), along with Al and A3, in the circumstances leading to his wife's alleged suicide. 4. 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. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner (A2) has been falsely implicated by Respondent No.1. The FIR and report dated 10-03- 2025 do not attract Section 108 of the BNSS against the Petitioner. The allegations stem from a baseless suspicion by the defacto complainant, allegedly motivated by personal grudge, malice, and intent to harass. The incident is said to have occurred on 09-03-2025 at ll:00 hrs, but the report was lodged only on 10-03-2025 at 17:30 hrs-after a delay of 30 hours, with no explanation, which is detrimental to the prosecution's case. The deceased was taken to private hospitals in Narasaraopet and Mangalagiri, bypassing the nearby government facility. The Petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and the investigation is almost completed. The Petitioner undertakes to comply with any conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court. Hence, anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. ~7fr g> i ``t+ 6. On the other hand, -Sri G. Neelothpal, learned Assistant Public prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent/State, opposes the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the investigation is still pending. 7. ln Mah,-pa/ V. Ra/-esh1, 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 fac,'e or reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused had committed the crime. 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 Nlohit 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 comm-lt su-lcide. The act of instigation must be intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under wh-ICh he Or She, has no choice, but to commit su-lcide. Such instigation must be in Close proximity to the act of committing suicide. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Of Gangu/a Mohan Redc'y 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 intentionally aiding a person in doing Of a thing: vyithOut a..POSitiV? .apt on the pa-rt of trfe accused to instigate or aid_in coapmit!ing. §.ui?iqe, convicti-on cannot be sustained." The Supreme Court also held that it is not possible to lay down any formula in dealing with such cases. 1 (2020) 2 SCC 118 2 2015 SAR (Criminal) 156 3 criminal Appeal No.3578 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023 4 AIR2010SC327 .e2 {-ilsls: __--a ll. The word "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. presence of mews res, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 12. As per the observations made in M.Mohan v. Sfafe of ram,-/nac'u5, while dealing with ingredients of Section 306 of IPC held as under: 'Before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 of IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine 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 born in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any pos-ItiVe action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicideJ conviction in terms Of Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable. 13. ln light of the above settled legal principles, the rival contentions raised on behalf of both sides will be appreciated to dec`ide the entitlement of the Petitioner to get the relief of anticipatory bail. 14. The report states that the de facto complainant's wife has been an Anganwadi teacher for ll years. lt was revealed that she consumed pesticide due to threats from A.2 and Balsingh Naik, who warned her of a potential complaint to her higher officials, which could lead to her removal. The petitioner (A.2) is accused of blackmailing the deceased for sexual favours after discovering her relationship with A.1. The complainant learned this from his brother-in-law, Adam Basha. 15. The investigation discloses that A.1 had an 'lllicit relationship with the deceased, living together under the guise of being a "son." When A.2 learned of the relationship, he allegedly threatened the deceased with reporting the matter to higher authorities. On 09.03.2025, A.1 reportedly assaulted the deceased during an argument and encouraged her to commit suicide by consuming pesticide. 5 (2011) 3 SCC 626 _z# ___` ._ . .:T3 E=EEEH 16. Based on the allegations, it is difficult to conclude, Prima faCie, that the petitioner abetted or assisted the deceased 'ln committ-lng suicide. The report does not indicate any direct involvement by the petitioner that could have compelled the deceased to take such an extreme action. It merely suggests that, prior to the incident, A.1 had an argument with the deceased and told her to die. 17. lt is settled law that While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory 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 -ls the exception. Arrest should be the last option, and it should b'e restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative based on the facts and circumstances of that case. 18. At this stage, it is difficult tO assume that the Petitioner Was accused Of directly or indirectly inc-lting the victim to commit suicide. The material provided does not indicate any goading, solicitation, or suggest-Ion by the petitioner, nor does it show that he aided, abetted, or instigated the suicide in any way. 19. At this stage, the allegations against the Pet'ltiOner are Subjected tO the trial's outcome. lt is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper with the prosecution evidence or ®lntimidate the witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. 20. It -ls not the Prosecution's Case that the Petitioner failed to cooperate w-lth the investigation, and he is not available for interrogation. There is no indicat-Ion of a likelihood that the Petitioner WOuld abscond from the jurisdiction of the court. The petitioner has expressed Willingness tO cooperate With the a.` '\ '¥ S investigation agency. The object of the bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The likelihood of levying :~ccusations with the I'ntentiOn Of harmI-ng Or embarrassing the petitioner through potential arrest is not improbable. 21. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this court views that even if the petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail, there cannot be any apprehension for the Prosecution that he will tamper with the evidence. The material placed on record discloses that the petitioner has permanent abode. It is not the Prosecution's case that the petitioner would flee away from the jurl'sdiction of the Court. The facts do not warrant custodial interrogation of the petitioner I-n the nature of the accusations. Thus, there is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. Grantl-ng anticipatory bail to the petitioner would not impede the ongoing investigation. Hence, if the petitioner was 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, thl's court Its Satisfied that reasonable grounds exI'St tO grant antiCiPatOry bail to the petitioner/A.2. 23. As a result, the Criminal Petition js a//owec/ by granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A.2 subject to hl's surrender before the Investigating Officer concerned withl'n two (2) weeks from today. On such surrender, the petitioner Shall be released on bail on hl's 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 his release, the Petitioner iS mandated to adhere to the following condl-lions: i. On such release, the petl'tl-oner/A.2 is 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.OO p.m., for a period of three (03) months or till filing the charge sheet, whichever is earlier; and 24. NothI'ng Stated above shall be construed as a final expression ofop['nion on the merl'ts of the case, and the trI-al Will proceed l'ndependently of the observations made I'n the present case, whl-ch are only for adjudI'Catl'ng the Present bail application. Miscellaneous appljcatjons pending, l'f any, sha" stand closed. sD/- K.SRINJVAS,'3. ,a-3AJu A t\-\-._ ASS'S'rANT //TRUE COPY// SEC TEAR / TloN OFFICER To 1. The station House officer, Nekarekallu poll'ce station, palnadu Dl'strjct. 2. One CC to sri ch Nagendr-amu, Advocate [opuc] 3. Two CCs to public prosecutor (AP) HI-gh Court ofAndhra pradesh [OUT] 4. One spare copy CVSS I t . {b t=3 I_ ---- HIGH COURT TMR,J DATE D : 16/04/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.3388 of 2025 ALLOWED *