A V IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE : PRESENT; THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8453 OF 2025 Between: 1. Yerrabotula Vanaja, aged 52 W/o Ramakrishna Chowdhaiy, R/o. 0pp. Global Gen School, Madakasira Road Penukonda Town, Sri Sathya Sai District 2. Yerrabotula Suiyakalavathamma @Kalavathi,, aged 59 yrs S/o Yerrabotula Ramaiah R/o D.No 7-217 R/o 0pp. Global Gen School, Madakasira Road Penukonda Town, Sri Sathya Sai District Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners/Accused No.2 & 4 on bail in Crime No. 45 of 2025 of Puttparthy Town, P.S. Sathya Sai District in the event of his arrest in the interest of justice: \ COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS; Sri R. Harish Kumar COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following APHC010419262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8453/2025 Between: 1.YERRABOTULA VANAJA,, AGED 52 W/0 RAMAKRISHNA CHOWDHAIY, R/0 OPR GLOBAL GEN SCHOOL, MADAKASIRA ROAD PENUKONDATOWN, SRI SATHYASAI DISTRICT 2.YERRABOTULA SUIYAKALAVATHAMMA @KALAVATHI AGED 59 YRS S/O YERRABOTULA RAMAIAH, R/0 D.NO 7-217 R/0 OPR GLOBAL GEN SCHOOL, MADAKASIRA ROAD PENUKONDA TOWN, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.HARISH KUMAR RASINENI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the 2 Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.45 of 2025 of Puttaparthy Town Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 332(b), 109(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.02.2025 at 07:30 p.m., the accused persons, namely Errabothula Raviteja Chowdary (A-1), Vanaja (A-2) (mother-in-law), Tarun Teja (A-3) (brother-in-law), and Kalavathi (A-4) (paternal aunt), along with certain unidentified individuals, in furtherance of their common intention, criminally trespassed into the residential premises of the complainant, Smt. Devarinti Tejasri. The complainant was married to Accused No.1 on 10.10.2021, and at the time of marriage, her parents had provided a dowry comprising Rs.50 lakhs in cash and 75 tolas of gold ornaments. Though the marital relationship was initially cordial, the complainant was subsequently subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty by A-1, primarily owing to his illicit relationship with Kalavathi (A-4). The complainant was further harassed by A-2 and A-3, thereby aggravating her suffering. On the date of the incident, the aforementioned accused 3. persons, armed with iron rods and wooden sticks, unlawfully entered the complainant’s residence and launched a violent assault upon her father, Subrahmanyam, with the intention to commit murder. During the said attack, the accused issued criminal threats to the complainant, warning that any attempt to seek restitution of dowry articles or to testify against them would result in false implication in 3 dowry-related cases and physical elimination. Upon hearing the commotion, the complainant and her mother raised an alarm, prompting neighbours to arrive at the scene. The neighbours witnessed the accused people fleeing and subsequently provided corroborative statements attesting to the aggressive conduct and presence of the accused at the scene of offence. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Sri R.Harish Kumar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioners have not committed any offence; they were falsely implicated in this case; they are ready abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accu sed Nos.2 & 4. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR; 3. 4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail stating that investigation is not completed; if the Petitioners are enlarged on pre-arrest bail, they would not be available for the investigation, and they will repeat the same offence; and it is urged to dismiss the bail application. 5. Perused the record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. Now the point for consideration is; Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail? ANALYSIS: 7. Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 4 are the relatives of the husband of the de-facto complainant. Petitioner No. 1/Accused No.2 is the mother-in-law of the 4 de-facto complainant. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.4 is maternal aunt of the husband of the de-facto complainant. The de-facto complainant alleges that 23.02.2025 the Petitioners and other accused trespassed into her house with some deadly weapons like iron rods and sticks and tried to attack her father; they also threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences. There is a delay of more than one and half months in lodging the report by the de-facto complainant. The de-facto complainant submitted a typed copy of the report. There are no injuries caused to de-facto complainant. 9. This Court already granted regular bail to Accused Nos.1 & 2. The Petitioners are females and they are permanent residents of PenukondaTown, Sri Satya Sai District. Petitioner No.2 i.e., the maternal aunt of the husband of on 8. the de-facto complainant, who is suffering from cancer and she is aged about 59 years. That apart there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations alleged against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 4 and the alleged role specifically played by the Petitioners/AccusedNos.2 & 4, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to 10. the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 4. CONCLUSION: 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of their arrest, the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing a personal % 5 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 4 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 4 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 4 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. V. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 4 shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. Vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 4 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claims that they does not have passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. IV. on every Sd/-SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT R TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Puttparthy Town, P.S. Sathya Sai District 2 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. (OUT) 3. One CC to Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One spare copy Ksv HIGH COURT DR.YLRJ DATE: 21-08-2025 ORDER CRLP.No.8453 of 2025 ALLOWING CRIMINAL PETITION