RE EEI `± '® IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AIVIARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY, TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTY FIVE # : PRESENT: %givSv THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7533 OF 2025 gr Between : `t`\''.,de.`#in```± €S.±`Lriie_i 1. Bathina Varalakshmi, W/o. Pothuraju, aged about 54 years, Residing at D.no.10-97/A. Yathapeta, GangadeviPeta village Munagapakamandal, Anakapalli District, Mobile No. 8008049810. 2. Bathina PothuraJ-u, S/o. VenkataSwamy(Late) aged about 62 years. ResidI-ng at D.no. 10-97/A, Yathapeta, GangadeviPeta village MunagapakamandaI AnakapaIIi District, Mobile No. 8008049810. Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 AND The State of AP, Through Station House Officer, Munagapaka police Station, Anakapam District. Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, AP High Court, Amaravathi. Respondent/Complainant Petition under section 480 & 483 of BNSS., is filed prayI-ng that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/ Accused No. 1 & 2 on regular bail in Crime No.99/2025 on the file of the, Munagapaka police station, Anakapalli District. The petl-lion coming on for hearing, upon perusl-ng the petitl'on and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Dr. MAJJI SURI BABU, Advocate for the petitioners and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent; -.,/_ Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7533 of 2025 Dated 25.07.2025 i__ - _. .a --RE The Court made the fO[[OWing: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the code of criminal procedure,1973 (for brev'Ity+fthe Cr.P.C.I)/ sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagar'lk Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity {the BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail in Cr.No.99 of 2025 of Munagapaka Police Station, AnakapaIIi District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 herein for the OffenCeS Punishable under Sections 80 (2), 85 read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity [the BNS]) 2. The case of the Prosecution iS that On 16.06.2025 at 19:OO hours, the complainan{ lodged a report at Munagapaka Police Station stating that her daughter, Battina Paidikumari, was married Six years ago tO Battina Venkatesh, who reS'ldeS in Singapore. Since the marriage, her daughter was continuously harassed for addit'lonal dowry by her in-laws, mother-in-law Battina Varalakshmi/, father-in-law Battina Pothuraju, co-sister Battina Sai, and brother-'ln-law Batt'lna Santosh. They also mentally tortured her With false accusations Of illicit relationships. ln spite of repeated counseling, the ;larassment persisted, and she was -r.-.I---- also physically abused.=, Recently, Paidikumari visited her parental home _. =^ 3 Dr. YLR, J CrI.P.No.7533 of 2025 Dated 25.07.2025 during summer holidays with her two children. After enrolling them in school at Anakapalli, she returned to her in-laws' house. On 16.06.2025 at around 1 :30 PM, her father-in-law informed them that She had died by suicide. The complainan{ suspects continued dowry harassment and false accusations led her to take this extreme step. The body was shifted to NTR Hospital, Anakapalli for post-mortem. 3. Sri Dr.Majji Suri Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence; they are falsely impl'lcated 'ln this case; they are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners themselves surrendered before the Sub-DivisionaI Police Officer on 17.06.2025 and later they were remanded to judicial custody. The husband of the deceased is residing - --- -----------._~ in Singapore. During the six years of marital life of Venkatesh and the ~'-.~_.-`,'` `'`~n '1-'Lr`~Jl`_` i'-`Ld..I {L_..I_. t `-I" .._.` ..* ~.`." deceased, they were blessed with two children. She took an extreme • -` '`--- --_., step of ending her life, for which no fault can be attributed {o the givpJ` -I---\--.' petitioners, and it is urged to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the granting of bail, stating that some more xp --i material witnesses have to be examined; the investigation is not 4 Dr. YLR, I CrI.P.No.7533 of 2025 Dated 25.07.2025 completed; if the petitioners are enlarged on bal'l, they would not be available for the investigation and would escape from the clutches of law. I{ is urged to dismiss the bail application. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the statement of L.W.6 is very crucial. In her statement, L.W.6 stated that the petitioners, being the in- laws of the deceased, demanded the deceased to bring additional dowry. 5. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the case record, so farthirteen (13) witnesses have been examined by the Sub-DivisI-Onal Police Officer. The husband of the deceased is residing at Singapore. The husband, Battina Venkatesh, and the deceased lI-Ved together for Six years and Were blessed with two children. It is also to be noted that the petitioners are aged about 54 and 62 years respectively, the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased. They themselves surrendered before the sub-Divisional --J--- . Police Officer on 17.06.2025. Later, they were remanded to judicial custody by the learned JudicI'aI Magistrate concerned. Thus, the petitl'oners have been in judicial custody for the past 38 days. _ _ a I- 5 Dr. YLR, J CrI.P.No.7533 of 2025 Dclted 25.07.2025 7. As seen from the statement of L.W.6-neighbour, she states that she mediated between the Venkatesh and her wife, the deceased. When i_9*`ch-,`--I mn`--T` ` th-J~`--.t`,`r,.hf--rng~--m```--`` T! I ~--t ``, I_`` a_I-,``||ar_T.+.i~~L`,.~`+._. ,_ ,.,.tr+-I JI,-I., ch..I(. the deceased asked for a separate residence away from her in-laws, the _-----tr- --'- husbahd of the deceased stated that there had already a palacious ~.I.I.~~^+~| -I+-^'' ~ ^-I '- I A ~' I-` '^L[ ~^++ `` ~ I m--_`.L<" _Jt»t\_I+vL^ `l : house, and questioned the necessity of living separately. Unable to bear the response of her husband, the'''deceased went into her house and ended her life by hanging herself with a saree. -. r. >mts-J``..-. i..t I 8. Considering the gravity and the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, who are the in-laws of the deceased; their alleged role in the case; the fact that the petitioners themselves surrendered before the Investigating Officer; the marriage between the deceased and the petitioners' son having taken place six years ago; and the period of detention undergone by the petitioners in judicial custody, this Court deems it fit to enlarge'the petitioners on bail with certain stringent conditions. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to they executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only), each with two I- 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7533 of 2025 Dated 25.07.2025 sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned ll Additional Junior Civil Judge-Gum-XII Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate at Anakap'alIIl. ii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not leave the limits of the State of A.P., without prior permission from the Investigating Officer till the filing of the charge sheet. iii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not commit or indulge in similar offences in future. iv. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall be available to the investigating officer as and when called by him. SD/-K.J.RAJA BABU //TRUE COPY// :sc#RoEF(F : :.TERRA R To'1. The H Additional Junior CivH Judge Gum X" Metropolitan Judicial 2. TMhaegistur;:erinatteAnndaekn:,pgl:ihtral Jail, Visakhapatnam. f4Z7 3. The Slat-Ion House Officer, Munagapaka POliCe Station, Anakapalli 3r District. #f 4. One CC to Dr. MAJJI SURI BABU, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. rOUT1 E= .-), E= P I I '¢ HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED :25/07/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.7533 of 2025 ALLOWED I