1 JN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10327 OF 2025 AMARAVAT / V'- •. '•k fi \ V. \ 'i'r''/ i <5 <#' \'s RAO Between: 1. Chundu Esurathnam @ Yesu Ratnam, S/o. Chinna Rattayya, aged about 25 years, R/o. Potiuru Village, Savaiyaparam Mandal, Palnadu District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Chundu Chinna Rattayya, S/o. Chinna Subbaiah R/o. Potiuru Village, Savaiyaparam Mandal Pradesh. 3. Chundu Gangamma, W/o. Chinna Rattayya, aged about 39 years, R/o. Potiuru Village, Savaiyaparam Mandal Pradesh. 4. Chundu Rattamma Rathamma. W/o. Subbaiah, aged about 39 R/o. Potiuru Village, Savaiyaparam Mandal, Pradesh. 5. Chimaladinne Nagendramma years, R/o. Potiuru Village, Savaiyaparam Andhra Pradesh. j aged about 44years, Palnadu District, Andhra > Palnadu District, Andhra } years Palnadu District, Andhra j W/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 40 Mandal, Palnadu District » ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 to 5 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Court of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High High Court Buildings at Nelapadu ) Guntur > District, Andhra Pradesh. Savalyapuram Police Station, Guntur District (Palnadu District) .... Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS is filed, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant bail to the Petitioners/AccusedNo. 1-5 in connection with Crime No. 59/2025 on the file of the Savalyapuram Police Station, Guntur District (Palnadu District), Andhra Pradesh. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI CHETAN PONNURU Advocate for the Petitioners, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent and the Court made the following. ORDER s I APHC010531002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) / [3521] 0^ WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10327/2025 Between: Chundu Esurathnam @ Yesu Ratnam and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Ap Counsel for the Petltioner/accused(S): 1.CHETAN PONNURU 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 petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 on bail in Crime No.59 of 2025 on the file of Savalyapuram Police Station, Palnadu District, registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 herein for the offence punishable under ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2 Sections 115(2), 79 read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the case of the prosecution are that on 07.08.2025 at about 8.15 p.m., that due to disputes with her husband, she (the deceased) has been residing at her parents’ house at Potiuru Village for the last few days. The accused No.1 is resident of same village, he verbally abused her in obscene language, on 05.08.2025 at about 9.00 a.m., she went to house of accused No.1, informed his parents, paternal aunt and their relative at which time they all quarreled with her, physically assaulted her by beating her with hands and legs by pulling her hair, she suffered from mental distress and around 11.30 a.m., on the same day she consumed pesticide at her home. On noticing her, her uncle shifted her to hospital where she gave statement on 07.08.2025 at 8.15 p.m. Basing on the statement of defacto complainant the Crime No.59 of 2025 is registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Chetan Ponnuru, learned Counsel for the Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 submits that the Petitioners are innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, and that there is no prima facie material or cogent evidence ' % connecting the Petitioners to the commission of the crime. It is further contended that the Petitioners are the sole earning members of their families and that their incarceration would result in grave hardship and irreparable prejudice to their dependents. The Petitioners 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. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are permanent residents and there exists no apprehension of their absconding or evading the due process of law. The Petitioners have extended full cooperation in the course of investigation and undertakes to continue such cooperation in ail 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. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the past 47 days. In view of the foregoing, it is urged to allow the petition. 4. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms.P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and critical stage, with several material witnesses yet to be examined. 4 It is submitted that the premature enlargement of the Petitioners 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 Petitioners. The prosecution further raises an apprehension that, if released, the Petitioners 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 Petitioners absconding, thereby frustrating the due process of law. In view of the gravity and allegations, coupled with the potential threat posed to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioners are not entitled to the indulgence of discretionary relief and it is urged to dismiss the present Criminal Petition. 6. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 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: 7. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail? 5 ANALYSIS: 8. The allegations against the petitioners is that petitioner No.l/accused No.1 abused the deceased in obscene language. Later the deceased went to the house of accused No.1 and informed about this to his parents, paternal aunt and their relatives at which time they all quarrelled with the deceased and physically assaulted her by beating her with hands and legs by pulling her hair. Unable to bear this humiliation, the deceased consumed pesticide at her home. Later, she succumbed. The petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is father of petitioner No.1/accused No.1. The petitioner No.3/accused No.3 is mother of accused No.1. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5/accused Nos.4 and 5 are the relatives of petitioner/accused No.1. The petitioners were arrested on 20.08.2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 47 days. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the material portion of the investigation completed and charge sheet is yet to be filed. The petitioners are permanent resident of Potiuru Village, Savalyaparam Mandal, Palnadu District, petitioners have got fixed abode. was The CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioners and the period of detention 6 undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail with the following stringent conditions; The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall be enlarged bail subject to they executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda. I. on ii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. iii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall not commit indulge in commission of any offence in future. IV. or The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 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 petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. V. or 7 The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have a passport, they shall submit an affidavits to that effect to the Investigating Officer. VII. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. SDI- M.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT/JRE^TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District 2. The Superintendent, Narasaraopet Sub-Jail, Palnadu District 3. The SHO, Savalyapuram Police Station, Guntur District (Palnadu District) 4. One CC to SRI. CRETAN PONNURU Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. One spare copy ksr HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED:08/10/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.10327 of 2025 ALLOWED