IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND-AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6737 OF 2025 Betwee n : Doddapaneni Siva Kumari, W/o Late Doddapaneni Srinivas Rao, 50 years, Occ- Homemaker, R/o DSR lndraprastha, Pedakadimi?-': Pedavegi MandaI, EIuru District, Andhra Pradesh -534 003. Petitioner/A2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh - 522 237. Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 482 of BNSS., is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to consider the same and grant Anticipatory bail to the petitioner/Accused No-2 with a direction to the SHO, Manila Police Station, Eluru, Andhra Pradesh to release the petitioners/Accused No-2 on bail on producing sureties as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court in the event of their arrest in Crime NO. 39/2025. IANO: 1 OF2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS., is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the criminaIPetition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner/Accused No-2 on interim-bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the crime No39/2025 dated 18/04/2025, with a direction to the SHO, Mahila Police Station, Eluru, Andhra Pradesh, pending final adjudication of the above criminal petitI'On in the interest of justice. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri. RAVI KUMAR CHALAMALASETTl, Advocate for the Petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent; The Court made the following ORDER: i.t*- i .--- Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.6737 of 2025 Dated 23.07.2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity {{he BNSS]) by the petitioner/Accused No.2 for grariting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.39 of 2025 of Mahila UPS, EIuru Police Station, EIuru District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 85, 308 (5), 316 (2) read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity lthe BNSJ) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961' 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.04.2025 at about 1:39 P.M., the de-facto complainant gave a report to the police stating that she marr-led Vadapatla Sai Mallik/Accused No.1 on 03.01.2024 in the presence of elders. At the time of the wedding, adhering to the demand of her husband/A-1 and mother-in-law/A-2, dowry and gold were presented. Additionally, 3 acres of landed property and 60 sovereigns of gold were given under bride present`ations. After the wedding, Accused Nos.1 and 2 harassed heFJ]etth physically and mentally and threatened her with a demand to bring additional dowry by disposing of the 3 acres of landed property and handing over the gold. Out of options, she Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.6737 of 2025 Dated 23.07.2025 handed over the 60 sovereigns of gold to them. Accused Nos.1 and 2 mortgaged the same and utilized the amount for themselves only. Further, Accused No.1 took several amounts from her father under the guise of starting a business and siphoned off the same without starting any business. ln the month of Ashadam, she came to her natal home, gave birth to a female child, and remained there. Accused Nos.1 and 2 abandoned her and her daughter due to the birth of a female child and non-fulfillment of their demand for additional dowry. Against this backdrop, when her father was out of the home, Accused Nos.1 and 2 came to her natal home, thrashed her, intimidated her by placing a knife on her child, and took away her gold chain, her child's gold chain, and bangles. On observ'lng the same, the neighbours tried to prevent them, but they managed to escape from there. Based on the report of the complainant, a case was registered against the petitioner/Accused No.2. 3. Sri Ch. Ravi Kumar, the learned counsel forthe petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a lady; the petitioner has not committed any offence; she was falsely implicated in this case; she 'ls ready to abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court; and urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.2. T_gf-in `=-.,`__ Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.6737 of 2025 Dated 23.07.2025 4. Per cor7fra, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that investigation is not yet completed; if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, she will repeat the same offence and urged to dismi`c`,s the bail petition. 5. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the petitI'Oner/Accused No.2 I'S the mother-in-law of the de-facto .complainant, who lodged a report with the police alleging that the petitioner, her son, and other relatives had indulged in offences punishable under Sectl-on 85 of [the BNS' (498-A of tthe lPC'). The Hon]ble Apex Court in Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib BansaI, in T.P.(C).No.2367 of 2023 dated 22.07.2025, while passing the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble High Court of AIIahabad mentioned in Criminal Revision No.1126 of 2022 dated 13.06.2022, v,-de paras 32 to 38, with regard to the {Constitution of Family Welfare Committees' as safeguards against the misuse of Section 498-A of {the lPC', directed the appropriate authoritI'eS tO implement the same. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that a llcooling-off period" of two (o2) months shall be maintained before takI'ng any coercive Steps against the Petitioner in relation to the offence under Section 498-A of tthe IPC', __i- .\ c=-_-` Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.6737 of 2025 Dclted 23.07.2025 7. Considering the nature of the allegations leveled against the petitioner/Accused No.2, her alleged role played in this case and the fact that the she is mother-in-law of the de-facto complainant, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.2. 8. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. ln the event of her arrest, the petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to she executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall make herself available for investigation as and when required; iii. Thepetitioner/AccusedNo.2shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m.,I till filing of the charge sheet. .-z,5S:ff-` Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.6737 of 2025 Dated 23.07.2025 v. The petitI-Oner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. - sD/-G.HELANAIDU ASSISTANT R EraesRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Stat|lon House Offilcer, Manila Police Station, Eluru, Andhra I Pradesh. 2. One CC to Sri. RAVI KUMAR CHALAMALASETTl, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravat'l. [OUT] 4. One spare COPY I+ HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED :23/07/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.6737 of 2025 ALLOWED