IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 'I TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHli/IANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9079 OF 2025 i Between: Majji Srinu, S/o. Late Suri Babu, Aged about 30 years, R/o. H.No.15-8-41/A, Venkateswara Nagar, Kanakadurga Nursing Home, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through S.H.O. Gudlavalleru Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS/437 & 439 of Cr.P.C.js filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed ' ii in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in connection with Crime No. 93 of 2025 of P.S. Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate. 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 M/s. K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES Advocate for the Petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent, and the Court made the following ORDER: i i ' APHCOI 0457132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9079 of 2025 Between: 1.MAJJI SRINU, S/O LATE SURI BABU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/0. H.NO. 15-8-41/A, VENKATESWARA NAGAR, KANAKADURGA NURSING HOME, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through S.H.O. Gudlavalleru Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.93 of 2025 of Maharanipeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offence punishable under Section 194 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for brevity ‘the BNS’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that the incident occurred on 27.06.2025 at about 5.00 hrs at D.No.15-8-34, Venkateswara Nagar, Maharnipeta, Visakhapatnam. On 28.06.2025 at 7.00 hrs, wherein the defacto complainant lodged a complaint and stated that she has been working on a weaving loom at home. In the year 2012, her son’s marriage was arranged by elders with Padmavati and held in Visakhapatnam. Subsequently her son is eking out his livelihood by selling coconuts and peanuts on a pushcart near RK Beach, Visakhapatnam. For the past two years, there arose some disputes between her son and his wife due to misunderstandings and financial issues. The daughter-in-law developed a physical relationship with one Srinu, which caused her son immense mental agony. Inspite of several warnings, she did not listen. She used to pressurize her son by saying that if he died, insurance money would be come. It was due to severe mental agony, on 27.06.2025 at 5.00 hrs, the son of the defacto complainant sent a message saying that he was going to hand himself at his residence. As soon as they received message, they rushed to the sport, where he found dead by committing suicide. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking him to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation so far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail. Petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are yet to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non cooperation from thei Petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the Petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the Petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail? ANALYSIS: 7. The allegation against the Petitioner/ Accused No.2 is that he developed illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased, the deceased having known that fact fell severely disturbed. Wife of the deceased pressurized him to commit suicide and she would receive the Insurance amount. Father of the defacto complainant lodged a report against her, daughter-in-law and her paramount. Unable to bare the immoral attitude of his wife, son of the defacto complainant committed suicide by hanging himself. He wrote a suicide note. Accused No.1 is the wife of the deceased. The Petitioner was arrested on 24.07.2025. He has been in the judicial custody for the past 47 days. He has got permanent abode. He is resident of Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. Material witnesses have bpen examined. Prime portion of the investigation is completed. Therefore, chances of the Petitioner tampering the evidence or hampering the investigation are bleak. CONCLUSION: Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the Petitioner, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner bail with the following stringent conditions: 8. on The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), with two sureties each for the like each to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. I. sum ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2. shall appear before the Station House Officer, Maharanipeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court, iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. IV. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required, vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not, directly indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her V. or from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer, vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claim that he do not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. SDI- K.SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANW^ISTRAR i I SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Station House Officer, Maharanipeta Police Station Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, Visakhapatnam District ,2. The II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Visakhapatnam. 3. The Superintendent, Visakhapatnam Central Jail, Visakhapatnam District. » * 4. One CC to M/s. K S Murthy Associates, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OPUC] 6. One spare copy KN HIGH COURT i 5 DR.YLR,J DATED:12/09/2025 y ORDER CRLP.No.9079 of 2025 ALLOWED I i it i 5 SEP ® m ac ' ★