\ -+_ `````` IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7192 OF 2025 Betwee n : Kalyan Ganesh, Age 27yrs, S/o Sanjeevi, R/o D.No.1-92, SC Colony, Bakkapalem, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam cI-ty N/o D.No.6-181, Burji Village, Sitanagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram District ...Petitioner/AccusecI AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Inspector of Police, P.M.Palem P.S. rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P at Amaravati. ...Respondent/ComplainanE Petition under Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner oh bail in FIR No. 289/2025 in P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam in CrI.MP./No, 1878/2025, dated 02-07-2025, of lN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS| JUDGE, MAHILA COURT. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the: arguments of SRI J RAVI KU.MAR, Advocate for the Petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent, the Court made the following ld co10347782025 lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUST.ICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7192/2025 [3521] «` S` Betwee n = Kalyan Ganesh, AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh counsel for the petitioner/accused: 1.J RAVI KUMAR ."PETITIONER/ACCUSED u.RESPONDENT/COMPLA[NANT counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity fthe Cr.P.C.I) Sections 48O and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity [the BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No.289 of 2025 of pM Palem, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85 and 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya SanhI'ta (for Short [the BNS). _ur-1 --,_a 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that one Chinni Lakshmi (hereinafter called as defacto complainant) has one son and daughter by name Saraswathi @ Bhanu (hereinafter called as deceased). The deceased fell I'n love With accused and they got married in 2O20, by that time, the I defacto complainant and her relatives did not attend. Subsequently, the village elders asked the 'defacto complainant for giving dowry, for which she expressed her inability. Thereafter, the accused shifted his family to Visakhapatnam and residing l'n sc colony, Bakkannapalem, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam, where she blessed with one male child. When the defacto complainant attended the delivery, she bore expenses for Rs.30,000/- and also present half tula of gold chain and two gold rings to he grandson. 3. The defac{o complainant looked after the child and daughter for 5 months, at that time the accused who was doI'ng aS Security Guard, visits house in a drunken state and beat the deceased. The accused used to visit O the house, by that time he used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally and also neglected her. Then in 2024 the defacto complaI'nant joined as service maid in NovoteI, Visakhapatnam and had been residing along with deceased and accused, at that time, the deceased also blessed with second son. The accused also insisted the deceased to left {'he house along with two sons and at about one week prior to the occurrence of the offence the defacto complainant left Visakhapatnam and reached her village. On 18.05.2025 at 6.30 `P.M., the accused made' a phone call to her stating that at about 1.00 P.'M., the accused quarreled with deceased and beat her and that she closed the doors by bolting inside, subsequently the deceased did not open the door. When the accused forcibly opened the doors and found that the deceased was found hanging to a ceiling fan with chunny and that the defacto comPlainant rushed tO Visakhapatnam and found the dead body in 'K.G.Hospital, VI-SakhaPatnam. a i 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Ass`istant Public Prosecutor for the respondenvstate. perused the material on record. 5. Sri J.Ravi Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that Petitioner iS innocent and not committed any offence. The petI'tiOner Was arrested on 20.05.2025. Since then, he has been in judicial custody. Hence, he prays that the petitioner be enlarged on bail. y8` 6. Perconfra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, I opposed in granting of baI'l Stating that the investigation I'S not completed; if the I PetI-tiOner iS enlarged on bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he would escape from the clutches of law,I and urged to dismI'SS the bail pe[itjon. 7. The allegation against the petitioner/accused is that he harassecl his wife (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) by consuming liquor. The petitioner and the deceased have two children, who are currently residing with their grandmother. The investigation reveals that, so far, nine witnesses have I -been examined by the Investigating Officer, and all of them are materI'aI i '< .-.5 't\ witnesses. The postmortem report has also been received. The petitioner was arrested on 20.05.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 65 days. '-_ _,__ . As the substantial portion of the investigation has been completed, there appears to be no likelihood of the petitioner either threatening the witnesses or tampering with the investigation. 8. Considering the stage of I-nvestigation7 nature and gravity Of allegations made against the petitioner, and the period of detention already undergone by him, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 9. ln the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged`on bail subJ-eCttO he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to I the satisfaction of the learned XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam. ii. The petitioner/Accused shall appear before the station House Officer, PM Palem, Visakhapatnam commissI'Onerate, On every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:OO pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the TrI'al Court. _.-+ .x=± iii. The petitioner/Accused shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh, without prior permission from the lnvestI|gatI-ng Officer. I'V. The petitioner/Accused shall not commit or indulge in commission Of any Offence in future. tb` To, v. The petI|tiOner/AccusedshaII cooperate wI'th the I I-nVeStiga{ing officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself avaI|lable for interrogation by the investigatI-ng . officer as and when required. vl-. The petI'tI-Oner/Accused shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the ?ase so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. - i finch./-ifdi*ea``ayf. REAV!N €;HANi3it&` D fr-i P|jTY TRAR. For , //TRUE COPY// rSEGrT-§®RE C}F'F!CER 1. The XVI Addition`aI Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District 2. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam DistrI-Ct 3. The Station House Officer, P.M.Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District 4. One CC to SRI. J RAVI KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. One spare copy PSR HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED : 25/07/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.7192 of 2025 ALLOWED