APHC010489512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9633/2025 Between: MATAM ROSHAN JAMEER KHAN, AGE. 39YEARS, S/0 LATE MAHBOOB KHAN, R/O BEHIND THE POWER OFFICE, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, ANANTHAPURAMU TOWN DISTRICT- 515001 AADHAAR NO.2436-7630-1143. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THASLIMA NASRIN KHAJI, AGE. 30 YEARS, W/OMATAM ROSHAN JAMEER KHAN, R/O BEHIND THE POWER OFFICE, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, ANANTHAPURAMU TOWN DISTRICT- 515001 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, I TOWN POLICE STATION, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: P MADHUKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. V NITESH 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9633 of 2025 Dated 15.10.2025 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’) by the petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of bail in connection with Crime No.222 of 2025 of Anantapur I Town Police Station, Ananthapuram District, was registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 85, 109(1), 115(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’), Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.08.2025, at about 11:30 P.M., behind the Power Office, near Ambedkar Nagar, Ananthapuramu Town, the accused A1 married the complainant on 12.01.2025 in the presence of elders, according to tradition. At the time of marriage, the complainant’s parents gave gifts consisting of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, 12 thulas of gold, and household articles worth Rs.1,50,000/-. Thereafter, A1, along with his mother (A2), sister (A3), uncle (A4), and brother-in- law (A5), subjected the complainant to physical and mental harassment for additional dowry. On 15.08.2025, A1 allegedly attempted to kill her by forcing her to consume water mixed with tablets, causing her to lose 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9633 of 2025 Dated 15.10.2025 consciousness and be admitted to the Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu. Based on her statement recorded on 16.08.2025, a case was registered. 3. Sri P.Madhukar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the de- facto complainant was taken to the hospital by the petitioner himself. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 60 days. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, Mr. V. Nitesh, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, submits that the petitioner, with an intention to kill his wife, gave her water mixed with some tablets, as a result of which she fell unconscious. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the petition 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner, submitting that the petitioner, with an intention to kill his wife, gave her a glass of water mixed with ten paracetamol tablets. The de-facto 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9633 of 2025 Dated 15.10.2025 complainant consumed the same, fell unconscious, and was not taken to the hospital by the petitioner. It was LW.4 who took her to the hospital. Hence, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 7. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner is that he not only caused harassment and cruelty in relation to bringing additional dowry but also beat the de-facto complainant with a stick used for making chapattis and later gave certain tablets by mixing them in water to the de-facto complainant. The de-facto complainant, having consumed that water, fell unconscious. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the accident register dated 15.08.2025, wherein it was mentioned that the de-facto complainant was admitted to the hospital by the petitioner. However, L.W.4, in her statement under Section 161 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ stated that she had taken the de-facto complainant to the hospital for treatment. 8. Be that as it may, so far five witnesses have been examined. The investigation is at a progressive stage, and at this juncture, enlarging the petitioner on bail would not augur well to the progress of the 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9633 of 2025 Dated 15.10.2025 investigation. The request of the learned counsel for the petitioner for releasing the petitioner on bail at this point of time is not found convincing and reasonable. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no merits to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 15.10.2025 RSI 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9633 of 2025 Dated 15.10.2025 52 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9633 of 2025 Date:15.10.2025 RSI