IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVSrffi THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4113 OF 2025 Between || Jartha Arjun Rao @ Arjun Reddy, S/o. Lingayya, Aged about 50 year, R/o. Kondareddy Kothapalem VI-Ilage, Bheemudupakalu panchayat, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District. . ,. Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Andhra pradesh, Through SHO, Addateegala Police StatI'On, Erstwhile East GodavarI' DI'StriCt, Rep. by the public prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravati. ...Respondent petition under section 480 & 483 of BNSS (Old SectI-On 437 and 439 of cr.p.c.) is filed praying that in the circumstances stated ]'n the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the crl-minal petition, the High court may be pleased to enlarge petit[-oner/accused on ba" in F[R No. 06 of 2025 on the file of the Addateegala Police Station, Addateegala, East Godavari District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petitI'On and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI M K RAJ KUMAR Advocate for the petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent, and the court made the following ORDER: APHCO10193702025 IN THE HIGfi COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (special original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMlNAL PETITION NO: 4113/2025 Between : Jartha Arjun Rao @ Arjun Reddy AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh counsel for the petitioner/accused|. 1.M KRAJ KUMAR [3369] ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED HIRESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT counsel for the Respondent/COmPlainant: + 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the''fOl'OWing: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, u/See.480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2O23, has been filed by the Petitioner/accused Seeking regular bail, in Crime No.6/2025 of Addateega'a POliCe Station, ASR District. 2. A case has been registered against the Petitioner for the Offence punishable u/See.108 BNS. 3. Heard learned COunSel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant public prosecutor representing the respondent/State. 4. Case of the Prosecution, in brief, iS that, this iS a Case Of abetment Of suicide that was occurred on o1.'02.2025 at about 03.00 pm at Pinjarakonda village, Adda{eegala Mandal and \t=ePsebrted On 03.02.2025 in which the E-5E 2 complainant reported that f-6w days before a dispute was occurred between his son/deceased Miriyala Nageswara Rao and the accused regarding missing of crowbar of accused, the accused has suspicion over the deceased for missing of his crowbar, on o3,02.2025 at about 3.00 pm, the accused by suspecting the deceased, asked hI'm about the missing Crowbar by saying that the said crowbar was taken by the deceased and asked hI|m either to give the said crowbar or to die by taking any kind of medicine and he abused the deceased with filthy language and beat the deceased with his hands. Having distressed with the acts of the accused, the deceased with an intention to put an end to his life, consumed tricot medicine and came to house and informed the same to his father. on that the cdmplainant and his wife took the deceased to Hospital at Addateegala and on the advice of doctors from there to Rajamahendravaram and while taking treatment at Rajamahendravaram, deceased died on o3.02.2025. Hence the complaint. 5. Heard. Perused the record. 6. Learned counsel forthe petitionersubmitsthat{he pe{i{ioner has been in judicial custody from o7.02.2025 and most of the investigation is completed and the ingredients of section 108 of BNS has no application to the facts of the case as the case of the prosecution is that on abuse made by the petitioner in front of the villagers, the deceased has committed suicide and prays to allow the criminal petitI'On. e- J`=± ±`- ''---.--'rT_T==-I¥_ 3 7. Learned AssI|Stant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the Court may pass appropriate orders. He further submitted that no antecedents are reported against the petitioner. 8. Without going into the aspect of applicability of Section 108 BNS to the facts of this case, as investigation might have been completed by this time and as the petitioner is in judicial custody from 07.02.2025, this Court found that further detention of the petitioner is no longer required. 9. ln Masroor V. Sfafe of U,P.7, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: 13. ... Though at the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be =voided, but there is a need to indicate in such order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. 1Q. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the ingredients of Section 108 of the BNS do not apply to the facts of this case. Furthermore, with the exception of Section 108 of the BNS, the other offences alleged carry a punishment of imprisonment of less than seven years. ll. To establish an offence under Section 108 of the BNS, the essential elements outlined in Section 45 of the BNS must be satisfied. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amab Manoranjan Goswam,I V. sfafe ofA7aharashfra2, held that; , "In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Before a person may be said to have abetted the commission of suicide, they must have 2 (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 427 (2009) 14 SCC 286 T=---<± EEiE] 4 played an active role by-'an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide". 13. At this stage, the allegations against the petitioner are subject to the trial's outcome. The trial is anticipated to take a considerable amount of time. Bail serves the purpose of allowing an accused to remain free until his guilt or innocence is determined. lt is settled law that mere apprehension that the Accused would tamper with the prosecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. In the said facts of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail {o the petitioner. 14. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: (i) The petitioner/accused herein shall be released on his executing a personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addateegala; (ii) On release, the petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a fortnight between lO.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon, for a period of two (02) months. (iii) the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and hamper the investigation and shall cooperate for investigatioE . TRUE COPY,, ASSssD:5:TTK::N#eeffiB!sA:T:§uAR For At,olo . n" I r`[ulu I l`,`. . t dr Jr.- To, 1. The Station House Officer, Addateegala Police Station, Addateegala, ., East Godavari DistrI'Ct. 2. The Superintendent, central Jail, Rajahmundry, East Godavari Dl-strict. 3. The Judicial First class Magistrate, Addateegala, East Godavari # District. 4. OneCCto SRI. MKRAJKUMAR,Advocate[OPUC] of;# 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh. Z [OUT] 6. One spare copy KN HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED : 24/04/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.4113 of 2025 ALLOWED