IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8435 OF 2025 Betwee n : S Gangi Reddy @ Dhaniyala Gangi Reddy, S/o S.Kati Reddy, R/o. No.75B, Maduru Road, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District. ...petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, AmaravatI'. ...Respondent/Comp[ainant Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest in relation to Crime No.335 of 2025 dated 05.08.2025 of Prodda{ur Rural Station, YSR Kadapa District I'n the interest Of juStiCe. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petitI'On and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.Janakirami Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Public Prosectitor for Respondent, the court made the following APHCO10419362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (special original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENkATA JYOTHIRIVIAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8435/2025 Between : S GANGI REDDY ALIAS DHANIYALA GANGI REDDY, S/O S KATI REDDY, R/O. NO.75B, MADURU ROAD, PRODDATUR, YSR KADAPA DIST ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP, AMARAVATl ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. K JANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha sanhita, 20231 has been filed by the petitioner / Accused No.1, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.335 of 2025 of Proddatur Rural Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, which was registered for the offence un¢der Section 108.read with 3(5) of Bhar`atiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20232. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased namely V.Pedda Obula Reddy, who is the husband of the De facfo complainant had been running I In sIIOrt cBNSS' 2 In short cBNS' 2 an oil mill. During the course of his bus.iness, the deceased borrowed an amount of Rs.ll,00,000/-from the Petitioner / Accused No.1, Rs.6,00,000/- from Accused Nc,.2 and Rs.4,00,000/- from Accused No.2. Subequently, as he sustained loss in the business and inview of his health issues, the deceased could not repay the debt to them. All the Accused have been pressurizing the deceased to repay the amount due to which, the deceased suffered lot of mental agony and was admitted in Suresh Hospital, Proddatur. After discharging from the said hospital, Petitioner / Accused No.1 called the deceased to his office and made an agreement with him for repayment of Rs.ll,00,000/-due to him and forced the deceased to sign on the said agreement. while so, on o4.08.2025 at about 07.00 p.m., Accused Nos. 4 to 6 came to the house of the deceased staing that they were sent by Petitioner / Accused No.1, demanded him to repay the debt, for which, the deceased told them that he would talk to the Petitioner /Accused No.1 on the next day. However, Accused Nos.4 to 6 humuliated him statmg l'Dabbulu Kattaleni Bathuku Endhuku, Ee Bathuku Bathike Kante Chaavac/am MefuJJ. Unable to bear with srich harassment, oh o5.08.2`025 the deceased had committed suicide by consuming poison pills. Based on the complaint given by the wife of the deceased, the present case has been registered agasint Accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence under section 108 read with 3(5) of BNS. + 3. Heard Sri S.Sriram, learned Senior counsel, assisted by sri K.Janakirami Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Accused No.1 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for state / Respondent. J1- -L==:;=iJ¥ -t,3 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused No.1 would submit that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner are omnibus and baseless. Learned Senior Counsel`would further submit that the Petitioner has been doing business in supplying oil seeds and in that connection, he supplied oil seeds worth Rs.ll,00,000/-to the deceased on credit basis. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Petitioner is merely a creditor of the decased, arising out of a commercial transaction. lt is submitted that there is no agreement executed by the deceased as alleged in the Complaint. It is further submitted that, demand of repayment of a lawful debt without any pressure or criminal intent does not attract the offence under Section 108 of BNS. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that there is no mews res to commit the alleged offence and there is no active or direct act on the part of the Petitioner /Accused No,1 which led the deceased to commit suicide. lt is submitted that as seen from the contents of FIR, the deceased's extreme step was due to his financial difficulties only, but not due to harassment of the Petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that recoveryof debt or insistence on repayment, in the absence of element of criminal intimidation, harassment or illegal compulsion, cannot by itself constitute abetment of suicide. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance oh the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana3, M.Mohan vs. The State4, Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others5, Madam NIohan Singh vs. State of Gujarath6, `t., 'Tb 3 2024 Cri.L.I 1561 4 AIR20l I SC l238 5 MANU/SC/1103/2025 y~_. \-`. 4 M.ArJ-unan VS. The State7, sanju vs. state of Madhya Pradesh8, vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs. state of Maharashtra9, Mahendra Avase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh10, ude singh and others vs. state of Haryanall and Nipun Aneja and others vs. state of u.p12. 5. Per confra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Petitioner / Accused No.1 called the deceased to his and made him to execute the agreement. lt is further submitted that, though the deceased was in hospital, the Petitioner along with other Accused humiliated him demanding the amount. lt is submitted that the investigation is at nascent stage, as such there is every possibility of tampering with the evI'denCe in case, the Petitioner is granted anticipatory bail. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. lt is alleged in the complaint that-the petitioner / Accused No.1 Pressurized the deceased for repayment of the amount due to him and also sent Accused Nos.4 to 6 to the house of the deceased, who humulimated the deceased by demanding the amount. A bare perusal of the material on record would show that this is a case of abetmen{ abetment {o commit suicide alleged to have been committed by the petitioner along with other Accused. As rightly put by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, there are t commercial transactions between the petitioner and the deceased as the 6 (2010) 8 SCC 628 AIR2019 SC43 8 AIR 2002 SC 1998 9 AIR2018 SC 2659 lo 2025 (4) SCC 801 " (2019) l7 SCC Sol l2 2024 SCC Online 409I 5- peti{ioner supplied oil seeds to the deceased on credit basis which is accumulated to an amount of Rs.ll,00,000/-. lt is the further COntentiOn'Of the learn-ed senior counsel that, no .agreement has been obtained by the petitioner from the deceased. whether the alleged act of the Pet'ltioner in demanding the deceased to pay the amount due to him and sending Accused Nos.4 to 6 to the house of the deceased, Who humulimated the deceased and the same led to his suicide, is the factual aspect to be decided during investigation. A plain reading of Section 108 of BNS, the precedents referred to supra and the conents of the complaint would disclose that, it iS not the stage to decide the culpability of the Petitioner by accepting the allegations leveled against him. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined tO grant antic'lpatory bail to the Petitioner. 7. Accord-lngly, the Petit-Ion iS allowed grant-lng antiCiPatOry bail tO the petit'loner / Accused No.1, on the following COnd-ltiOnS: ('l) The Petitioner / Accused No.1 shall appear before the COnCerned Magistrate Court, within one week from today and Shall furnish personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand Only) With two Suret-leS for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of.concerned Mag-lstrate Court; (ii) The Petitioner / Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station House / officer, concerned, once in a week i.e., on sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m., until further orders. (iii) The Petitioner shall be available for investigation aS and When required by the Investigating Officer; E=EJ 6 (iv) The Petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him / her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Investigating or Police Officer. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-K. KASiRAO AC,HAR! //TRUE COPY// ASSISTA : :cT##: G+STRAR FICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Proddutur Rural Police Station, YSR Kadapa District. 2. One CC to Sri K.Janakirami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs toPUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of A.P., Amaravati.[OUT] 4. One spare copy. PSD Note: llCrime No.335 of 2024" is corrected as tfCrime No.335 of 2025" in the Order dated 16/09/2025 as per CourtJs order dated 20/09/2025 in I.A.No.01 of 2025. Substitute this amended order in the place of earlier order which was dispatched on 16/09/2025. Sd/-K.Kasirao Achfari ASSISTANT REGISTRAR HIGH COURT DR.VJP,J DATE: 16/09/2025 20/09/2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER (AMENDED) CRLP.No.8435 of 2025 ALLOWED - ` f`.--rf'..--< -