APHC010590642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9575/2024 Between: Kotha Jagadeesh and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) A N D The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. CHALLA AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 O R D E R:- This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.238 of 2024 of Prakash Nagar Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 and other accused for the offence punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘BNS’). 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 21.12.2024 at about 7.30 a.m., the informant viz. Vakkalagadda Kumari, husband of one Vakkalagadda Lakshminarayana (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’) gave report to Prakashnagar Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, alleging that her husband i.e. the deceased, was running Srinivasa Mixture Point on rent basis at AVA road, Rajamahendravaram and he also established another branch at Madhapur, Hyderabad; that two years thereafter, they were alleged to have approached 1st petitioner herein/accused No.1, who is a Chartered Accountant, to get a person for partnership to their 3 business, due to financial issues; that the petitioner No.1 herein/ accused No.1 was alleged to have convinced the informant and the deceased that he would be the Partner to them, as he has been working as Chartered Accountant to them for six years; that accordingly, the petitioner No.1 herein/accused No.1 was alleged to have invested Rs.29.00 lakhs stating that he would give 50% in business and would clear all their debts within three months; that the petitioner No.1 herein/accused No.1 was alleged to have made a proposal to get loan of Rs.20.00 lakhs on the business and was alleged to have obtained the signatures of the deceased on a Rs.100/- stamp paper, deceitfully; that as the informant was suffering from ill-health, the deceased went to Rajamahendravaram to see her and after her recovery, when the deceased returned to Hyderarbad, the petitioner No.1 herein/ accused No.1, along with petitioner No.2 herein/accused No.2, was alleged to have informed that he is no way concerned with the business and was alleged to have necked him out from the business premises; that the deceased was alleged to have expressed his agony to the informant about the act of the petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 and 2, and on 21.12.2024 at about 6.30 p.m. the deceased recorded a self-video stating that 4 due to the alleged harassment of petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 along with one Kumar, who is accused No.3, he was committing suicide and accordingly, he committed suicide by consuming pesticide. Basing on the report of the informant, a case in Crime No.238 of 2024 of Prakashnagar Police Station was registered for the aforesaid offence and investigated into. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 would contend that there was financial transaction between the petitioner No.1 herein/accused No.1 and the deceased on 23.05.2024 under a Business Purchase Agreement and the deceased received a sum of Rs.29.00 lakhs from 1st petitioner herein/accused No.1; that the petitioner No.1 herein/accused No.1 also obtained sub-lease agreement from Build Next to Metro Arena Private Limited; that the petitioner No.1 herein/accused No.1 had also entered into Exit Agreement with the deceased on 03.08.2024 at Hyderabad and he denied the to sign on the Exit Agreement, as the petitioner No.1 herein/accused No.1 was not paid his due amount. 4.1. Learned counsel would further contend that due to the inability expressed by the deceased, the petitioner No.1 herein/ accused No.1, with the help of petitioner No.2 herein/accused 5 No.2, had run the store with great difficulty; that the deceased appears to have taken hand loan from various persons and on 21.12.2024 he committed suicide; that the petitioners herein/ accused Nos.1 and 2 never abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 were falsely implicated into the crime by the wife of the deceased and they were apprehending arrest in the hands of police. Hence, they pray the Court to grant anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State would contend that prior to committing suicide by the deceased, the deceased recorded a self-video, wherein he narrated the entire financial transactions between the petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 made in respect of the business and the subsequent events. During the investigation, the police seized the videograph recorded by the deceased and it clearly revealed the harassment made by the petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 and 2, which abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The investigation is in progress and if, at this stage, the petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 are granted anticipatory bail, there would not be any progress in the investigation. Hence, prays to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6 6. Heard. Perused the record. 7. A perusal of the contents of the report given by the informant, who is wife of the deceased, goes to show that the deceased and the petitioner No.1 herein/accused No.1 were alleged to have entered into partnership business and thereafter, the deceased was alleged to have necked out, when he entered into the business premises, as he was informed that the petitioner No.1 herein/accused No.1 was alleged to have high-handedly taken the business from the deceased. 8. A perusal of material placed on record further goes to show that on 19.11.2024, a legal notice was alleged to have been issued to the petitioner No.1 herein/accused No.1 by the office of one of the Advocates at Rajahmundry, in respect of breach of contract and damages and seeking compensation for harassment, and surprisingly, such notice was issued on the instructions of the petitioner No.1 herein/accused No.1. Further, a reply legal notice, dated 06.12.2024 was issued on behalf of the petitioner No.1 herein/accused No.1 by another office of one of the Advocates at Kovvur to the counsel, who issued the legal notice, dated 19.11.2024, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner No.1 herein/accused No.1 never gave instructions to them to issue self- 7 notice to himself and such notice appears to be most ambiguous and quite misleading. 9. However, on 15.12.2024, a rejoinder was issued to the reply legal notice, dated 06.12.2024, clarifying the mistake that upon the instructions of the deceased, they issued legal notice on 19.11.2024 to the petitioner No.1 herein/accused No.1, stating that on 03.08.2024 a formal Exit Agreement was executed by the deceased and it was alleged that despite the said fact, the petitioner No.1 herein/accused No.1 was alleged to have failed to notify Neo Growth Credit Private Limited and other relevant entities about the transfer of rights and liabilities to petitioner No.1 herein/ accused No.1 and it caused undue harassment. 10. A perusal of allegations leveled as against the petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 goes to show that the petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 were alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS. The videograph recorded by the deceased narrating the agony and humiliation underwent by the deceased, was transcribed into words and filed before this Court. Prima facie some case has been made out as against the petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 that their acts humiliated and caused agony to the deceased, which abetted 8 him to commit suicide. The learned counsel for the petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 and 2, though, raised some serious contentions with regard to Exit Agreement, those contentions are all disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided in a petition filed seeking for Anticipatory Bail. The material on record goes to show that the investigation is at nascent stage and if the petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 are granted pre-arrest bail at this stage, it would cause hindrance to the investigation. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 and 2. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition in the Criminal Petition if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ __ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 17th February, 2025. DNB