[3369] lN THE HIGH COURT OF,,,-ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT FRIDAY ,THE E,LEvENTH DAY OF JULY TWO TH`OUSA_ND AND TWENTY FIVE 'iT5RESENT: / THE HONOURABLE SRi JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO # CRIMINAL PETmON NO: 5749 OF 2025 j, Between : 1. Garikina Nookamma, W/o Errayya, Aged about 55 Years, House Wife, Door No. 1-1, Palman-rlapeta Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 2. Garikina Errayya, S/o Garikina Gali Raju , Aged about 73 Years, Cultivation, Door No. 1-1, Palms,nnapeta Village, Payakaraopeta MandaI, Visakhapatnam Dig:{`rivct 3. Koviri Nagamani, W/o Jagannatham, Agec! about 39 Years, House Wife, Door No.1-1, Palmannapeta Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 4. Koo'a Satyavati, W/o Babji, Aged about 41 Years, House Wife, Door No. 2, Addaripeta Villa,g_e~`tThondangi MandaI, Vemavaram, East Godawari District 5. Koda Babji, S/o Koda Ghinna Maseenu, Aged about 48 Years, Cultivation, Door No. 2 , ,>,`ng:dciaripeta, Thondangi Mandal Vemavaramj{ East Godawari District. 6. Koviri Sai Ram, S/o Jagam}adarn, Aged about 24 Years, Door No.1-1, Palmannapeta Village, Payakaraopeta MandaI, Visakhapalflam District. Petitioner/Accused No.2 to 7 / C'-L-_-_ AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Payakaraopeta Police Station, Visakhap-atnam District) Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra pradesh, Amaravati. Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 482 of BNSS is- filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the criminal -petition, the 'High Court may be pleased to grant the an{icipatory bail to the petitioners (A2 to A7) in connection with in Crime No.111/2025 U/Sections 85, 89,351 (2) r/w 3 (5) Of BNS, 3 and 4 of DP Act, 92 (b) Disability Act, dated 16-05-2025 on the file of Payakaraopeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri RAM BABU DEVAVARAPU Advocate for the PetI-tiOner, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) for the Respondent, The Court made the following order: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of BNSS, has been filed by the petitioners/A2 to A7, seeking a.nticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No.111 of 2025 of Payakaraopeta Police Station, Anakapalli district. 2. A case has been re-gistered against the petitioners h-erein and others for the offences punishable under secti-;=ns 85, 89, 351(2) read with 3(5) of the B.N,S and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 92(b) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equ.aI opportunities, protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,1995. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, 'IS that the de-faCtO COmPlainant reported on 16.5.2025 stating` that she married Al on 27.01.2023 at _ E== c?_r=...i-=---_J Siddhar{ha Function Hall, Tuni. Before marriage, she disclosed her retinal condition, which was acknowledged by the groom's side througtl a written agreement. Her family gave dowry of Rs.2O lakhs im cash,10 tulas of gold, 2 lakhs worth of sarees/household items and 3 lakhs worth for her younger sister. Al claimed that he was working as a Financial Analyst at Bank of America, Hyderabad. The couple has a son, she lived at her in-laws home for -two years, while her husband stayed in Hyderabad and used to visit monthly and neglected her. He allegedly admitted. marrying her only for dowry. Later, a woman named E.Rajeswari/A8, contacted the complainant through a phone call claiming that she had a six years live in relationship with A1, had a child with him and was currently pregnant. A8 stated that A2 {o A7 were aware of the affair and they also supported it and she also sent ph'otos of Al along with their child and she pressured de-facto complainant to give divorce to A1. On 30.12.2024, Al allegedly gave some pills under the pretext of improving her health {o de-facto comp'ainant, taking advantage of her disability and after consuming the pills she suffered miscarriage within two days. Al threatened to kill the de-facto complainant if she told anyone about it. Then de-facto complainant's family confronted A1, but he behaved rudely. Al and his relatives started harassing the de-fac.I.9...,C^mPlainant, demanded .~~-I . tfs± additional dowry of Rs.25 Iakhs. When de-facto complainant along with Sarpanch visited her in-laws house, she wast mocked for her disability, physically assaulted and abused in filthy language and her son was forcibly taken away by her husband/Al and inJaws. Hence, the F.I.R. 4. Heard both sides.I Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, except under Section 89 of the B.N.S.I all other offences are punishable with less than 7 years and Section 89 of the B.N.S., has no application to the facts of the presemt case and requested to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory Bail. 6. A perusal of the material on record goes to shov,, that the accusations relating to the miscarriage was made against the husband- Al only. The only allegation made against these petitioners is that they are demanding for additional dowry. ln the said facts of the case, this Court finds force in the contention of the petitioners with regard to the non-applicability of Section 89 of the B.N.S. 7. Learned counselllfor'the petitioner submits that this Court granted anticipatory bail to A8 i'n the present crime vide order dated 04.07.2025 in Crl.P.No.6493 of 2025, wherein this Court has taken note of the fact that on perusal of the record goes to show that Al was allegedly E=-- ii= harassing the de-facto complainan{ and caused miscarriage of Pregnancy tO the de-faCtO COmPlainant. 8. ln viewofthe aforesaid facts and circumstances ofthecase, this `t Court finds force in the contention -of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 89 of.the B.N.S. has no application in so far as these petitioners are concerned, since all other offences are punishable less than 7 years, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners herein on the following conditi6ns. i) In the event of arrest-of the petitioners herein/A2 to A7 in the aforesaid crime, they shall be enlarged on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,OOO/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials and also on condition that the petitioner shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required, and they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise {o the prosecution witnesses. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. I. .. \-...tr/:-i.i llTF€HE COPYll I_ .-v `,/~` \_-----__. `-------_--_ / I `_ -.---`----..--_----.`. -.---`.--_ `.`--_--`. `'\,I--_-. ---.--.---.-`-._-:-_ Ss£!=TK;J\ :IRA_J_A DAB U AS S I STi-ri:nr`u_I+i I. /STRAR SEcTlo To, 1. The Station House Officer, Payakaraopeta Police Station, f# Visa,kJlaPatnam District. zz<e cc to SRI RAM BABU DEVAVARAPU Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor (AP) High Court ofA.P., AmaravatI- [OUT].. 4. One spare copy HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED:ll/07/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.5749 of 2025 ALLOWED