APHC010508862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10174/2025 Between: 1.PATH AN ARAFATH,, S/O. VASUDULLA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.5-466, AAYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE, BACK SIDE, KATEVARAM, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 522-202 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Publie Proseeutor, Through Old Guntur Poliee Station, Guntur Distriet A.P. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.SOMISETTY GANESH BABU 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.1 on bail in Cr.No.258/2025 of Old Guntur Police Station, Guntur District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No1 2 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 81, 49, 318(2) read with 3(5) (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’) and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the DP Act’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that the complainant, Shaik Gulshan, was induced into marriage through misrepresentation by marriage brokers Shaik Basha, Baji, and Khaseem Bee. They represented that one Pathan Arafath Khan, son of Pathan Asadulla Khan of Kattevaram village, was of good character and suitable for marriage. Relying on their assurances, her parents solemnized the marriage on 20.06.2025 at Ramayya Kalyana Mandapam, Guntur, in accordance with religious customs officiated by priest Shaik Mansoor. At the time of marriage, her family provided Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and six sovereigns of gold as dowry. Post-marriage, the complainant was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband and his relatives, who demanded additional dowry. She later discovered that her husband had previously married twice, having divorced his first wife and remaining legally married to the second, facts that were concealed prior to the marriage. 3. Upon raising objections, the complainant was abused by the accused persons, including the brokers and the priest, who refused to issue a marriage certificate and used offensive language. After consulting her elders, she approached the police station on 27.08.2025 and lodged the present 3 complaint seeking legal action for cruelty, dowry harassment, and matrimonial fraud. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 4. Sri Somisetty Ganesh Babu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, and that there is no prima facie material or cogent evidence connecting the Petitioner to the commission of the crime. It is further contended that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family and that his incarceration would result in grave hardship and irreparable prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to comply with any condition that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to impose while considering the prayer for grant of bail. 5. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a permanent resident of Kattevaram, Guntur District and there exists no apprehension of his absconding or evading the due process of law. The Petitioner has extended full cooperation in the course of investigation and undertakes to continue such cooperation in all future proceedings. It is also urged that the nature of the allegations does not necessitate custodial interrogation, and that the imposition of appropriate conditions would suffice to secure the ends of justice. In view of the foregoing, it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 6. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, asserting that the investigation is at a 4 nascent and critical stage, with several material witnesses yet to be examined. It is submitted that the premature enlargement of the Petitioner on bail would be inimical to the sanctity and efficacy of the ongoing investigative process and may engender deliberate non-cooperation on the part of the Petitioner. The prosecution further raises an apprehension that, if released, the Petitioner may exert undue influence upon, or intimidate, prosecution witnesses, thereby impeding the administration of justice and vitiating the evidentiary foundation of the case. It is also contended that there exists a palpable and imminent risk of the Petitioner absconding, thereby frustrating the due process of law. 7. In view of the gravity and allegations, coupled with the potential threat posed to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to the indulgence of discretionary relief and it is urged to dismiss the present Criminal Petition. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 8. In view of the rival submissions advanced by both the learned Counsel and upon a perusal of the prosecutorial narrative, the pivotal issue now meriting for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. The Petitioner is the husband of the de-facto complainant. The de-facto complainant is the third wife of the Petitioner. The de-facto complainant alleged cruelty and harassment in the hands of the Petitioner. The Petitioner 5 was arrested on 30.08.2025. He has been in the judicial custody for the past 43 days. 10. The second wife of the Petitioner got registered a case in Crime No.100/2025. This Court in that case enlarged the Petitioner on bail vide order dated 19.09.2025 in Crl.P.No.9573/2025. So far seven witnesses have been examined. In so far as the alleged role of the Petitioner is concerned, material portion of the investigation is completed. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. He is a permanent resident of Kattevaram, Guntur District. Period of custodial interrogation is completed. Chances of Petitioner either threatening the witnesses or tampering the evidence or hampering the investigation would not arise. CONCLUSION: 11. 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 on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Old Guntur Police Station, Guntur District, 6 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.1 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The petitioner/Accused No.1 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 police officer. vii. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 26.09.2025 VTS