\ `.-=`=-`> A ` THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: ~L5 RE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TMALLIKARJUNA RA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1609 OF 2025 ~ Between: ts IN THE,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAteiife; 1. Yagna Teja Reddy @ Vajja Yagna Teja Reddy, S/o. V.Thl'rumaleshwara Reddy, Aged 31 years, Occ. R/0.H.NO.57/A, Pearl Village, Botanical Garden Road, Near Chirec Public School, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Padma @ Viza Padma, V.Thirumaleshwar Reddy, Aged 55 years, Occ. R/0.H.NO.57/A, Pearl Village, Botanical Garden Road, Near Chirec Public School, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District 3. Thirumaleswara Reddy @ V.Thirumaleswara Reddy, S/o. V.Venkata Reddy, Aged 59 years, Occ. R/0.H.NO.57/A, Pearl Village, Botanical Garden Road, Near Chirec Public School, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District 4. Venkateswara Reddy @ Vaija Venkateswara Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, Aged 48 years, Occ. R/o. 1, Madavapalle, Pamurapalle, Prakasam, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by I-ts Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Nelapadu, Amaravathi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent/Complajnant _i< L6 2023L ray filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioners/accused nos. 1 to 4 on bail, in the event of their arrest in Crime No.05 of 2025 of P.S. Koumigundla, Nandyal District dated 16.01 -2025. ion under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, ing that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds ~ Counsel forthe Petitioners : Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari ` Counsel for the Respondent : Assl'stant Public Prosecutor. ` The Court made the following ORDER: [3369] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1609/2025 Betwee n : Yagna Teja Reddy @ Vajja Yagna Teja Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) and Others AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. NAGESHWAR RAO PUJARl ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: 1) This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, [BNSS') is filed Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking anticipatory bail 2025 of Kolimigundla Police Station, Nandyal District, offences punishable under Sections 85, 89, 351(2) r/w Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, tBNS'). Bharatiya Nagarik on behalf of the in Crime No.05 of registered for the 3(5) of Bharatiya 2) The prosecution alleges that this Case involves the harassment Of a married woman, accompanied by a demand for an additional dowry, followed by the unlawful termination of her pregnancy without her consent. The incident P `.`` d222? I \ occurred before 16.01.2025 at 18:00 hours and was reported to the police on the same day. Petl'tioners 1 t6 4, also accused of the crime, are alleged to have physically and mentally harassed the complainant (wife of Accused No.1 ) and demanded an additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-from her parents. Furthermore, they are accused of causing the complainant's miscarriage by mixing abortion pills in her ORS drink and threatening her with dire COnSequenCeS. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated, with the delay in lodging the complaint. 4) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the investigating agency mechanically registered the FIR, without any reasonable suspicion. The complaint filed by the defacto complal-nant pertains to a family dispute, which has been framed as a criminal offence. There is nothing in the complaint and FIR which would suggest that the petitioners have committed the offences. The Petitioners are law-abl'ding citizens who have been falsely implicated, seemingly to harass them. The Petitioners are willing to cooperate with the investigation and are ready to furnish any sureties deemed necessary by this Honlble Court. Consequently, they pray for the grant of anticipatory bail. 5) On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the RespondenVState, opposes the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the investigation is still pending. 6) I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition as well as in the Report. Consequently, the contentions presented by the learned counsel need not be reproduced. Jt z>, /,I,- 7) ln Mah,-pa/ V. Ra/-esh7, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it iS necessary r, for the court while considering a bail appl'lcation, to assess whether, based on the evidentiary record, pr,'ma fac/'e or reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused had committed the crime. 8) A Court dOeSn't need tO give elaborate reasons While granting bail, mainly when the case is at the initial stage, and the allegations of the offences by the accused would not have been CryStallised as such. a) ln Rakesh Baban Borhade Vs. State of Nlaharashtra and another, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that: "Anticipatory bail not to be granted as. a Tefter_Of rylP but S.hOuIP,.be. grant6d only whe.n_ a Gasp is m.ede..out ?nd the Court is convinced that the accused would not misuse his liberty". 10) According tO the report lodged by the Victim/defaCtO COmPlainant, the marriage between the let Petitioner and the Defacto Complainant took place on 19.05.2019. The report suggests that they I-lVed together haPP'lly until 28.05.2022. The accusation against the Petitioners is that, on 28.05.2022, they took the Defacto Complainant to Dr. Haritha Lakshmi, a specialist in treating women. Dr. Lakshmi allegedly informed the Complainant that medicine related to abort-Ion had been mixed with ORS. The contents of the report imply that the Defacto Complainant became aware Of this alleged mixing of abortion-related medicine in ORS on 28.05.2022. However, the DefactO Complainant did not lodge a report against her husband (1st petitioner) until 16.01.2025, suggesting a delay Of over two and a half years before filing the compla'lnt with the police. ll) On the Other hand, it iS brought tO the notice Of the Court that the lst petitioner has filed an original petition for divorce in F.C.O.P.No.283 of 2024 before the vl Additional District and Sessions Judge-Gum-Family Court at KukatPally, (for short, {the Fam'lly Court') against the Defacto Complainant. On 1 (2020)2SCC 118 2 2015 SAR (Criminal) 156 \+ '\ ez# / 19.03.2025, the learned counsel for the Petitioners filed a memo, enclosing JE/ the case status of F.C.O.P.No.283 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court. This status indicates that on 16.12.2024, Sri L. Chandra Mohan Reddy, advocate, filed a vakalat for the Respondent (Defacto Complainant herein), and the matter has been posted for the appearance of the parties on 17.02.2025. lt is evident that after the filing of the divorce petition by the lst Petitioner, the Defacto Complainant lodged this report on 16.01.2025. The Petitioners' counsel submits that the allegations regarding abortion Were likely made based on the premise that the other alleged offences are punishable for less than seven years, and as such, the petitioners may be entitled to the benefit of Amesh Kt,mar V. Sfafe of B,-haf, and the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. 12) Considering the significant delay in reporting the alleged act Of mixing medicines to cause an abortion on 28.05.2022, the possibility that these allegations were included in the report at a later stage cannot be ruled out. lt appears that the Defacto Complainant only lodged the report against the lst petitioner, her husband, and his family members (Petitioners 2 to 4) after the filing of the divorce petition. This suggests that the allegations may rlaVe been raised after the divorce proceedings were initiated, particularly since the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable by less than seven years. 13) The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahhashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. Sfafe of B,-Aa/, held as follows: 18. "The' above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this COurt has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency Of implicating relatives Of the husband in matrimon-Ial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the COurSe Of matrimonial d®ISPute, 3 (2014) 8 SCC 273 4 MANU/SC/0163/2022 I-+ . I if left unchecked would ifesult in misuse of the process Of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has Warned the COuriS from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband When no prima facie case is made out against them". 22. "Therefore, upon consideration Of the relevant Circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused aPPellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged." 14) ln K. Subba Rao & others v. State of Telangana5, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus'. 5. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdiCted by uS at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse Of the Process Of a COurf. This Court, at the same i-Ime, does not hesitate tO interfere tO SeCIJre the ends of justice. see state of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana y. Bhajan LaI, MANU/SC/0115/1992]. The courts should be car?ful ir proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertairing tot matrimoni-al disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be raped in On the basis Of Omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out_. 3e? kans Raj v. State of Punjab [MANU/SC/0296/2000] and Kailash chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P. I(2014) 16 SCC 551] 15) ln light Of the deC-lSiOnS Cited SuPra and given the Submission Of the petitionersl counsel that lSt petitioner could not appear for conciliation proceedings before the Family Court, due to the regiStrat'IOn Of the Crime, and considering that petitioners 2 and 3 are the lst Petit'lonerls parents and 4th petitioner is the 3rd Petit'loner's brother, the possibility Of implicating the petitioners in the commission of the offence cannot be ruled out. 16) At this stage, the allegations against the Petitioners are subjected tO the trial's outcome. lt is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused 5 MANU/SC/0880/2018 irirfyZ would tamper with the pros.ecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses cannot be a ground to refusel'bail unless the prosecution shows that the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. 1l, ln Siddharam Satlingappa Nlhetre V. State of Maharashtra6, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down certain factors and parameters that must be considered whl'le dealing with anticipatory bail. It further held as follows: 113. Arrest should be the last option, and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative based on the facts and circumstances -of that case. The Court must carefully examine the entire available record, particularly the allegations directly attributed to the accused, which are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record. 18) lt is also a well-accepted principle that bail is the rule and thejail is the exception. The Hon'ble Apex Court in P.Ch,'dambaram V. a,'recforafe of Enforcemenf, considering all the earlier judgments, observed that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same in as much as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 19) It is not the Prosecution's case that the Petitl-oners did not cooperate with the investigation, and they are not available for interrogation. There is no indicatiom of a likelihood that the petitioners would abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court. The Petitioners have expressed willingness to cooperate With the investigation agency. The object of the bail is neither Punitive nor Preventative. The likelihood of levying accusations with the intention of harming or embarrassing the petitioners through potential arrest is not `improbab]e. 20) Given the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this 6 (2011) 1 SCC 694 7 (2019)9SCC66 Siv / case, this court views that even if the Petitioners are granted ,pre-arrest bail, I, there cannot be any apprehension for the Prosecution that they will tamper with the evidence. The material placed on record discloses that the Petitioners have a permanent abode. The facts do not warrant custodial interrogation of the Petitioners in the nature of the accusations. Granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioners would not impede the ongoing investigation. 21) Upon careful review of the available material, as there is no risk of interference with the ongoing investigation by the Petitioners, this Court finds that anticipatory bail can be granted to the Petitioners under certain conditions: i) Petitioners are directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Kolimigundla Police Station, Nandyal District, within two (2) weeks from today. On such surrender, the Petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. ii) The Petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation and they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a pol'lCe officer as and when required, and they 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 22) lt is explicitly clarified that the observations made in this Order are preliminary and pertain solely to the decision on the present petition without indicating a stance on the case's merits. The Investigating Agency is affirmed to have the freedom to investigate without being influenced by the observations in this Order. frivv, \ -.- -, ii=j= lI-_ zf EE c-,-, //TRUE COPY// SD/-B.CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTAN2aesTRAR SECTION OFFICER F( _To, 1. The Station House Officer, Kolimigundla police station, Nandyal District. 2. One CC to Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari, Advocate [opuc] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor (AP) Hl-gh Court ofAndhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. One spare copy CVSS HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED :20/03/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.1609 of 2025 ALLOWED l2l'1f MAfl 2"l5