IN THE H[GH COURT PF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRl TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE i;i:a::gj : PRESENT: i;i HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA R Betwee n : CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3725 OF 2025 !'~tq-;¢r/.l1~ ./ I:!#,i.g;fry 1. Jaliparthi Rama, W/o. Sambasiva Rao, Aged 56 Years, R/o. Sivalayam Road, Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, NTR District. 2. PolavaraPu Hima Bindu, W/o. Harsha, Aged 32 Years, R/o. H No. 2-22- 193/B/302, Plot No. 130 Hanumas Balaji Residency, Jaya Nagar, Tirumalagiri KukatpaUy, Hyderabad, Telengana State. 3. PolavaraPu Harsha @ Polavarapu Sriharsha, S/o. Venkata Durga prasad, Aged 35 Years, R/a. H No. 2-22-193/B/302, Plot No.130 HanumaS Balaji Residency, ' Jaya Nagar, Tirumalagjri KukatpaUy, Hyderabad, Telengana State.` 4. Jaliparthi Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Veeraiah Aged 63 Years, R/o. sivalayam Road, Kanchikacherla Village and MandaI, NTR District. i Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 ' AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Through the Station House Officer KanchikaCherla Police Station, NTR`District. Respondent/Complainant petition under sections 482 '~of BNSS (old 438 of Cr.P.C), praying that in the circumstances stated in the- affidavit filed in support of the Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased tO enlarge the Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 63 of 2025 on the file of the Kanchikacherla Police Station, NTR District, in the interest of justice. `i-:I lANO: 1 OF2025 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. (under section 482 of Cr.P.C), CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed l'n support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim bail to the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 in connection with Crime No. 63 of 2025 on the file of the Kanchikacherla Police Station, NTR District, in the interest of justice, Pending disposal of CRLP 3725 of 2025, on the file of the High Court. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Uday KumarVampugadavala Counsel for the Respondent : Sri G.Neelothpal, Assistant Public Prosecutor. The Court made the following ORDER: 1. The Criminal Petition, under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, {BNSS') is filed' on behalf of the petitioners/A.1 and 4 to grant antjcjpatory bail in connection with Crime No.63/2025 of Kanchikacherla Police Station, NTR District. 2. Initially, this criminal petition is filed by petitioners 1 to 4/A.1 to A.4, during the pendency of the petition, police arrested the A.2 and A.3, hence the criminal petition in respect of A.2 and A.3 is dismissed as infructuous. 3. A case was registered against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). ` ®- faJ--T- --i,cJ+ 4. The Prosecution'S Case, in br®lef, iS that the COmPlainant Was married tO + the deceased, Jal'lparthi Veera Manohar, f-lve months ago. The deceased was employed as a Maintenance Manager at Help Hospital, Vijayawada. After their marriage, he gave some gold ornaments to A.1 to wear. Later, the deceased asked A.1 to return the Ornaments SO that he COuld Obtain a gold loan and clear his financial debts. However, A.1 informed him that She had given the ornaments to her daughter, A.2, without his knowledge. This led to a dispute between the deceased and A.1. Subsequently, On the eve Of the Sankranthi fe`stival, A.2 and A.3 came to Kanchikacherla from Hyderabad. During that time, a quarrel broke out between the deceased and A.1 to A.4. The accused allegedly threatened and verbally abused the deceased, referring tO h'lS financial debts and stated better to die rather liv'lng and then he vexed on his life and comm'ltted suicide on o7.03.2025 by consuming Pesticide POiSOn due to the harassment of A.1 to A.4, and he Was then Shifted tO Help Hospital, where he underwent treatment; however, he succumbed to the effects of the poison and passed away on 14.03.2025 at 15:00 hours. Subsequently, the de facto complainant lodged a report on 15.03.2025 before the first respondent, request'lng that appropriate legal action be initiated. 5. I have heard Sri V. Uday Kumar, learned COunSel for the Petitioners, and sri G.Neelothpal, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent / state. Learned counsel On both Sides re'Iterated the'lr submissions on par with the contentions presented 'ln the petition as well as in the report. consequently, the contentions presented by the learned counsel need not be reproduced. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners Submits that the de faCtO complainant has falsely implicated the pet®ltioners w'lth fabricated allegat'IOnS; the deceased attempted suic'lde on o7.03.2025 and was hospitalized the same day-, in his statement to the pol-lee, he cited family property d-lsputes and made no allegations against the Pet'ItiOnerS; despite this, nO FIR was registered based on his statement; the deceased passed away on 14.03.2025, . . and the complaint was filed only on 15.03.2025, with no explanatl-on for the Jr, delay; the complaint appears exaggerated and lacks any material to constitute abetment,- the petitioners have a fixed residence, pose no flight risk or threat of evI-denCe tamPering, and are willing to comply wI'th any conditions I'mPOSed by this Honlble Court for their release on bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant public prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent/State, opposes the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the investigation is still pending. 8. ln Mah,-pa/ V. Ra/-esh], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that I-t iS necessary for the Court while considering a bail application, to assess whether, based on the evidentiary record, pry-ma rae,'e Or reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused had committed the crime. 9. ln Rakesh Baban Borhade V. State of Nlaharashtra and another, 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''. 10. 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 306 of IPC, the Prosecution has tO Show that the accused abetted the deceased and there must be a clear mews rea to commit the offence. ll. 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 commit suicide. The act of jnstl'gatl'on must be intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a positI'On under which he or she, : (202O) 2 SCC 118 3 criminal Appeal No.3578 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023 2015 SAR (Criminal) 156 EEEEE] \ 4 \ has no choice, but to commit suicide. such instigation must be in close ff| proxim'lty to the act of committing suicide. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Of Gangt,/a Mohan Reddy V. sfafe of A.P.4, held that clear mens rea to comm'lt offence must be Present for proving the abetment of suicide. lt held as under: "20. Abetment involves a mental process Of inStigetiOP a Person Or, i-ni=;ti`:;=ii;-alld;h; -i -berSon in doihg of a thing: vyithout_ Slip.P_sit!y:_3JC^t ';;iii--ii'rf -gf-irfe --alb6used to insirga_te or ai-d_in c,oT_m_iT_iTgJ £Lu!:igt:: -;6r;;i-ctiro-n--cirin-i,i-b€ -:;:tained." Th€ Supreme Court also held that it is not possible to lay down any formula in dealing with Such Cases. 13. The word llinstigate'' denotes incitement Or urg'lng tO dO some drastic Or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. presence of mens res, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigat'lon. 14. As per the obserVat'lOnS made in M.Mohan V. Sfafe of ram,I/nadu5, while dealing with ingredients of section 306 of lPC held as under|. 'Before holding an accused guilty of an offe_nee under Sectio_n|_3_0_6_ _of_I£P,P: t-hy€ -tiori'i -k-irast -Si;drivi6dsli ex'amine the facts a_nd ei.r?umSt.anC1?SIS?f_. t!.€. `;:s:-ir;a -;I-s; i:Si'5:-die 6vidence adduced before _it in .o!.der. to .fire, ?,!t_ -iri:ti;5'r-ti; -cr-u-art-y-a;d -harassment meted _out !o. fhe .yiptin? _ Pall !e_ftLt_h£ 'jidi-in-vii-irk-n5-i;irk:r alternative, but to commit Suicide. It is alsq fo be bo£rP1 'i;`;'i'ni -{ir;tin-i-==6:-off-;Iiidid abetment Of Suicide, there TySt b?I_P?I Pf_ 'di;€5i-o-; -i;a-i-ie6{-a-ci of incit-ement to the commission of suicide. ..prerely,p_p_ i;:-`afr6dir;ofn--drf--hirisSment without .there . b?i.pg ar_y _ _p_OJS.ifi.¥£_La,C_tlo^n. `ir-orideaE: -{i -{hi ii ;i-6i 6ccu rre_nee _or _ the part?.f th? _aLC_C_!_S_eS|w.h^iS,PJ3d.RE r;i#;drI-:Jiri6--pi;:i;{o-i6mmit suicide, c6nviction in terms of Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable. 15. ln light Of the above Settled legal PrinC-lPleS, the rival contentions raised on behalf of both sides will be appreciated tO decide the entitlement Of the petitioner to get the relief of anticipatory bail. 16. As seen from the record, the defaCtO COmPla'lnant'S husband, Jaliparthi veera Manohar, being vexed On his life, COnSumed PeStiC-lde PO'ISiOn On o7.03.2025 and said to have died On 14.03.2025 at O3.00 PM while 4 AIR2010SC327 5 (2011) 3 SCC 626 / `` '`b i -__Jj£_.__ .,I-_.__,, , _ - --- undergoing treatment in the hosp,.ital. Petitioners 2 and 3, who are the sister and brother-in-law of the deceased, although joined in the present application along with the other petitioners, were shown to have been arrested during the pendency of this petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed aS against them. Upon a careful reading of the petition, it appears that Certain property disputes arose among the parties following the deceased's suicide. while it is alleged that petitioners 1 to 4 were responsible for abetting the suicide, the allegations primarily reveal that there were family disputes concerning debts reportedly incurred by the deceased. lt -ls further alleged that the petitioners rebuked him over these debts and made remarks suggesting that he was better off dead than alive. 17. A reading of the report indicates that there Were nO disputes between the deceased and his wife. lt is noted that petitioners 1 and 4, along with the deceased and his wife, were residing in a shared accommodation. The petitioners contend that the de facto complainant, who is the daughter-in-law of petitioners 1 and 4, had been preSSur'lng them tO transfer their Properties tO her name in connection with the present case. The petitioners have also submitted a copy of a settlement deed, allegedly executed between the parties on 28.03.2O25, reflecting an understanding regarding the PrOPert-leS; however, it appears that the settlement did not materialize. Upon an overall assessment of the material on record, this Court is of the view that the property disputes among family members appear to be the primary reason behind the deceased's suicide. AIthough petitioners 2 and 3 are said to be residing elsewhere, certain allegations have been made linking them to the incident. 18. Based on the allegations, it 'ls difficult tO COnClude, Prima faCie, that the petitioners abetted or assisted the deceased in committing suicide. The report does not indicate any direct involvement by the petitioners that could have compelled the deceased to take such an extreme action. lt merely suggests . G# +- i= I 6 \ that, prior to the incident; A._1 to A.4 had an argument With the deceased and I/ told him to dole. 19. 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. 20. lt 'lS Settled law that While COnSidering the Prayer for grant Of antiC'lPatOry bail, the accusat-lon'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 cit'lzen. lt is also a well-accepted princ-lple 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 c'lrcumstances of that case. 21, At this stage, it iS difficult tO assume that the Petit-lOnerS Were accused Of directly or 'lndirectly inc'lting the vict'lm to commit suicide. The material Provided does not indicate any goading, solicitation, or Suggestion by the Petitioners, nor does it show that they aided, abetted, or instigated the suicide in any way. 22. At this stage, the allegations against the Petitioners are Subjected tO the triaI's outcome. lt iS Settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper with the Prosecution eV-ldenCe Or intimidate the Witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. 23. lt iS not the Prosecut'IOn'S Case that the Petitioners failed tO cooperate with the investigation, and they are not ava'llable for interrogation. There is nO / 6 2002(5) SCC 379 I f,,-ZJZ_ 7 r/ indication of a likelihood that the petitioners would abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court. The petI'tiOnerS have expressed Willingness to cooperate With the investigation agency. The object of the bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The likelihood of levying accusations with the intention of harming or embarrassing the petitioners through potential arrest is not improbable. a-=JEG:ed 24. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court views that even if the petitioners were granted pre-arrest bail, there cannot be any apprehension for the prosecution that they will tamper with the evidence. The material placed on record discloses that the petitioners have permanent abode. lt is 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 baj] to the petitioners would not impede the ongoing investigation. 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. 25. After carefully considering the material, this Court is satisfied that reasonable grounds exist to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A.1 and A.4. 26. As a result, the Criminal Petition is a//owed by granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A.1 and A.4 subject to their surrender before the Investigating Officer concerned within two (2) weeks 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 Offllcer. Upon their release, the petitioners are mandated to adhere to the following conditions: / ` i. The petitioners/A.1 an.d A.4 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat 6r promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Investigating or Police Officer and shall cooperate with the investigating officer. 27. Nothing 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 observations made in the present case, which are only for adjudicating the present bail application. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. sD/-p.vfNOb KUMAR A¢eI®-JI-__ F/ // //TRUE COPY// ASSJSTANTi To, 1. The Station House Officer, Kanchikacherla Police Station, NTR District 2. One CC to Sri Uday Kumar Vampugadavala, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor (AP) High Court ofAndhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. One spare copy CVSS yf'} ''\ c` I,.( jZ-, t*. ct- HIGH COURT TMR,J DATE D : 17/04/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.3725 of 2025 ALLOWED