IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7078 OF 2025 Between: 1. Manju Dev'l, W/o. Sanwal Das, aged about 55 years, D.No. 62, PerumaI Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai -600001 2. Sanwal Das, S/o. Ghewar Das, aged about 66 years, D.No. 62, perumal Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai -600001. Petitioners/Accused 2 & 3 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP at Amaravati, High Court Buildings at Nelapadu, Amaravati, Gun{ur District Through SHO, Hindupur li town Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District. Respondent petit-Ion under section 482 of BNSS (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 Petitioners On bail in the event of her arrest in F.I.R.No.235 of 2024 dated 29.ll.2024 registered on the file Of the SHO, Hindupur ll town Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District erstwhile Ananthappur couNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERj-MS KOPPARTHI SUMATHI couNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following.- ORDER:_-, The criminal petition has been filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nadarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, {the BNSSJ) by the PetitI-OnerS / Accused Nos.2 and 3 for granting pre-arrest bail I-n connection with Crime No.235 of 2024 of Hindupur ll Town Police station, sri Sathya SaI' District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85,109(1) I/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity [the BNS') and under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry ProhI|bitI'On Act, 1961. 2. The case of the prosecution isthatAl toA3 being husband and in-laws of R.B.Radhika, used to harass her mentally and physically and on the instigation of A2 and A3, Al used to beat her inhumanly. The accused also demanded the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry from their Parents. Thereby, they have committed the aforesaI-d OffenCeS. Hence the crime. 3. Ms.KopparthI' Suma{hi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence,I they were falsely implicated l'n this case,I they are ready to abI'de any COnditions to be I-mPOSed by this Court,I and urged to enlarge the petitioners on bail. == \~ I.S. 4. PercOnfra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed grant of ba" to the petltioners and prays to dismISS the Pet-ltiOn 5. PerusedthereCOrd. 6. The petitioners are A2 and A3, who are mother-in-law and father-'ln-law of the de facto complainant. They are aged about 55 years and 66 years respectively. They are residents Of Chennai. The de faCtO COmPlainant iS a L^ res'lding in Hl,ndupur. E= 7. ln V'leW Of gravity Of the Case, nature Of the a"egatiOnS leVe"ed against the petitioners and their alleged role played by the petltloners in this case, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. 8. ln the result, the Criminal Pet-ltion iS allowed With the COnditiOn that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners / Accused Nos.2 and 3, sha" be enlarged on ba" subject to executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each With two SuretleS for a llke Sum each tO the satisfaction of the arresting police offic'lals. sD/-G.HELANAIDU AS S:SE#EoGF ::::R For //TRUE COPY// To] 1 The SHO, HlnduPur " town Pollce StatlOn, Srl Sathya Sat DlstrlCt I -I^ I,^nDAF2THI SUMATHI Advocate LOPUC] ---- Jt HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED : 17/07/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.7078 of 2025 ALLOWED _:3?€C'A i i,_{fTf 18 "lz«i