IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE .-PRESENT.-~ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.- 5851 OF 2025 ~ _ \ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A| HARI HARANADHA SARMAg q:;€? Between || 1. NaIIagattla LakshmI Govl'nda Reddy, Aged about 55 years, s/o Nallagatla Raml' Reddy, Agrl'culturist, R/o H No.2-7, Kota Kandukur, AIIagadda Mandal, AIIagadda Mandal, NandyaI DI-StrI'Ct. 2. Nallagattla KasI' Vlswanadha Reddy alias KasI' Reddy, Aged about 45 years, s/o Nallagatla Rami Reddy, Agn'culturjst, R/o H.No.2-7, Kota Kandukur, Allagadda MandaI, AIIagadda Mandal, Nandyal DllstrI'Ct. AND Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2 The state ofAndhra pradesh, statl'on House officer, AIIagadda Rural poll-ce station, Nandyal DI'StrlCt, Rep.by public Prosecutor HIgh Court, Amaravatl, A-P. Responclent/complaimant petjtjon under sectlon 482 of BNSS (438 of cr p.c.,) prayI'ng that jn the circumstances stated ln the affldaVIt fl'Ied jn support of the crl'mlnal petl'tion, the Hlgh court may be pleased to release the petI-tlOners/Accused No,1 & 2 on ba" in the event of their arrest in FIR No 41/2025 on the file of the stall-on House offlcer, Allagadda Rural poll-ce statIOn, Nandyal DjstrI'Ct whl|ch l's regI'Stered for an offence under sectlons 108, 238 (a), 351 (1) I/w 3 (5) B.N'S. couNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER SRl| V MAHESWAR REDDY couNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT .- puBL[C PROSECUTOR THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER E= .5FT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5851 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. This is an application filed under section 482 of{he Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhi{a, 2023, for grant of pre-arrest Bail. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.41/2025 of AIlagadda Rural Police Station, NandyaI District, which was registered with the allegation of committing the offences tinder sections 108, 238(a), 351(1) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The petitioners pray for a direction to the concerned to release them on b Bail, in the event of arrest. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Point for determination: (i). Whether the petitioner`s/accused Nos.1 & 2 are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail in terms of section 482 of BNSS? If so, on wh'at terms? 5. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the family of informant- Bhagya Lakshmi TathiReddy taken the land of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 for lease to an extent of Ac.16.00 Cents at annual lease amount of t R';.15,000/- per Acre, out of the total amount payable, amount of Rs.2,03,500/-was paid but Rs.40,000'/-was due. When the crop is under the process of harvesting, the accused did not allow the family of informant that unless they pay the money, harvesting process will not be allowed and in that process the request made for granting time was not considered. Informant and t_._.1 r--9 i. d,giv ii='\t``, -\ AH i.ls`` Crl.P.No.5851 of 2oi\s`` her son were humiliated asking to die by consuming poison and that the son of informant consumed poison and died at hospital. Thus the petitioners have abetted suicide and they are ll'able for prosecution and punishment in terms of the Section under which case is registered. 6. The petI'tI'OnerS/Accused Nos.1 and 2 denied all the allegations. 7. The case of the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 is that they are innocent and the case is foisted with false allegations. Further connection between the death and the alleged humiliation is not found from the allegations l'n the FIR. Even if the prosecution story is true, mere utterance of ¢+I words like asking the person to die does| not amount to abatement of suicide. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in some similar circumstances like I|n the Process Of heated exchange Of arguments, one asking the other to dI-e does not amount tO abating Suicide, iS the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the appII-CatiOnS for quashing the case etc. He has submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions that this Court imposes. 9. . lt is submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that 7 witnesses were examined and RFSL report js waiting. 10. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and depth of the allegations, the prayer for grant of pre arrest bail found convincing. `q conditions: 1) Petitioners/Accused Nos`1 and 2 are directed to appear before the concerned SHO and on such appearance they Shall be released On bail, in the event of the-lr arrest in respect of cr.No.41/2025 of AIIagadda Rural Police station, Nandyal District, which was registered With the allegatiOn` Of committing offences under sections 307, 448, 427, 386, 509 r/w 34 of the lPC, on the condition they executing bail bonds for Rs.20,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the s.H.O., Allagadda Rural Police Station, Nandyal District, 2) The Petitioners/Accused Mos.1 and 2 and his sureties sha.Il furnish their permanent residential address details and identity particulars to the concerned police and keep the Police informed about the change in address, if any, time to time. 3) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall co-operate with'the investigation age-ncy, by furnishing necessary and legally permissible information and he shall not interfere with the investigation process like contacting or influencing the witnesses etc. 4) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not leave India, without permission of the concerned Court. S_<D± ^N,-,N+A_€AM MA ` A S S I s TA ri-+'`tov=H^I:=V_I_I. /S TEAR //TRUE COPY// SEcTl:."#F:JCER For ASSISTAN I T`L_-._ +~ ` - t i To, 1. The Station Hous'e Officer, AIIagadda Rural Police Station, NandyaI District 2. One CC to SRl. V MAHEJ'swAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two cos to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofA.P[OUT] 4. One spare copy ` -,. i : `h I( I+'tb , '£`.\ . '* =z| I I r ut,.+€`' - HIGH COURT AHHS,J DATED : 26/06/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.5851 of 2025 ALLOWED •{ ~' p`;`€:-I I+ r`