lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT.I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6493 OF 2025 Between : / Yallamilli Rajeswari, W/o Vegneshvarapu srinivas, Aged about 29 Years, / Door No.6-29-ll, Gollapeta, Tuni Town, East Godawari District. / . . . Petitioner/Accused No.A-8 AND The State of Andhra `~'Pradesh, (payakaraopeta police Station, Visakhapatnam District) Reb 'by the public prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under section 482 of BNSS, is fI'led Praying that in the clrcumstances stated in the grouhds filed in support of the crI-minal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent police to enlarge the Petitioners/A-8 on bail in the event of arrest in connection with I'n Crime No. 111/2025 of Payakaraopeta poII'Ce Station, Visakhapatnam DI'StriCt. The petition coming on for hearI-ng, upon Perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.L.Narasjmha Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of public Prosecutor for Respondent, the court made the following APHCO10314402025 E]HE ffiE EI lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (special original Jurisdiction) [3327] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENl-Y FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SR[ JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6493/2025 Between: YallamiIIi RaJ'eSWari H.PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State OfAndhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMbLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.P L NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLICPROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: 1. The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused No.8 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.ll,1 of 2025 of Payakaraopeta Police Stationj Anakapalli District. \=- I.. '` i/ 2 2. A case has been -JregiStered against the Petitioner/accused No.8 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 89, 351(2) read with 3 (5) BNS, Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 92(b) of the Rights of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 3. Case of the prosecution is that, on 16.05.2O25 at about 20.00 hours, the defacto complainant lodged a report stating that she got marr'Ied With the accused No.1 in the year 2012 in the presence of elders. Prior to the marriage, accused No.1 was informed about her retinal condition and the same was acknowledged by the Al and his family members by way of a written agreement. At the time of marriage, parents of de-facto complainant gave Rs,20.00 Iakhs ,in cash, 10 tulas of Gold and other valuables towards gold. They were blessed with a baby boy. They lived happily for some days. Thereafter, Al started ignoring the de-taco complainant. Later on one day, a woman named EIlamilli Rajeswari contacted de-facto complainant and informed that she is in living relationship with A.1 land they both had a child out of their relationship. She further informed that she was pregnant and threatened de-facto complainant to give divorce to A1. On 30.12.2024, at night in Palmannapeta, taking advantage of the de-facto complainan-t's disability, Al forcibly administered pills to her, resulting in a miscarriage, and when questioned, A1 threatened her with dire i..`+ ` __ --I 3 consequences, Thereafter, Al and his family members harassed - her, demanded additional dowry of Rs. 25.00 lakhs, insisted her for divorce and On 30.04.2025, physically assaulted and verbally abused her in filthy language. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. Perused the record. 6. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the accused No.1 was allegedly harassing the de-facto complainan{ and he was the person, who solely responsible for miscarriage of pregnancy of the de-facto complainant. The accusation that has been made as against®the petitioner herein is that the accused No.1 was living with petitioner herein. All the allegations are directed against A1. The petitioner is a lady, she is nothing to do with the accusation in the complaint, 7. ln view of the aforesaid reason, this Court is inclined to grant an{icipatory bail to the petitioner/ accused No.8. 8. Accordingly, in the event of her arrest, petitioner/accused No.8 shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) each, with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials and also on condition that the petitioner shall make herself available for investigation as and when required and that she i JP+, 4 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. SD/-P.VINOD KUMAR //TRUE COPY// ASSISTAesFEGISTRAD SECTION OF ICER To, . I,. . <\+ 1. The Station House Officer, Payakaraopeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 2. One CC to SRI. P L NARASIMHA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs toPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,. High Court of A.P., Amaravati.[OUT] 4. One spare copy. PSD •? i. -*-i'i |` \.. HIGH COURT SRK,J DATED : 04/07/2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.6493 of 2025 ALLOWED REke`, I-I.-*