APHC010477762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8041/2026 Between: 1. M KIRAN ALIAS KIRAN MUNIRAJU, S/O. M.R. MUNIRAJU,AGED 32 YEARS,R/O. H.NO.3, 2 CROSS 1-B MAIN VENKATEGOWDA LAY OUT,HEBBAL KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh,At Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY 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 Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.144 of 2026 of V.Kota Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 85 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya 2 Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS.,’) and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the D.P.Act.,’). 2. Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.1, submits that the criminal case is a consequence of matrimonial discord and has been instituted to exert pressure on the Petitioner and his family. He submits that though the de-facto complainant left the matrimonial home on 22.02.2026, the complaint was lodged only on 16.08.2026 after an unexplained delay of nearly six months, casting serious doubt on the allegations. It is argued that the allegations relating to dowry demands and property transfers are subsequent embellishments intended to criminalize a matrimonial dispute. Learned Counsel further submits that the parties were engaged in mediation through family elders, indicating efforts at reconciliation. He also contends that the allegation of an attempt on the complainant’s life is inherently improbable, unsupported by any contemporaneous complaint or medical evidence, and allegedly occurred in the presence of independent witnesses. It is further pointed out that one of the persons alleged to have instigated the Petitioner was residing in Japan at the relevant time, exposing the falsity of the allegations. Emphasizing that the Petitioner has no criminal antecedents, has been in judicial custody since 18.08.2026, and is neither likely to abscond nor tamper with evidence. The Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 3 3. Per contra, Mr. A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law and urged to dismiss the Petition. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On perusal of the record, the Petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.1 in this case. The allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is that, after subjecting the de-facto complainant, who is his wife, to physical and mental harassment in connection with alleged dowry demands and demands for transfer of her parental properties, he, on 22.02.2026, allegedly assaulted her and attempted to cause her death by pressing a pillow against her face, purportedly at the instigation of Accused Nos.2 and 3. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 was arrested on 18.08.2026. He has been in judicial custody for the past 35 days. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations made in the complaint, it is noticeable that though the de-facto complainant is alleged to have left the matrimonial home on 22.02.2026, the report came to be lodged only on 16.08.2026 after an unexplained delay of nearly six months, which is a circumstance that requires consideration at this 4 stage. The allegations levelled against the Petitioner arise out of an admitted matrimonial dispute between the parties and several of the accusations, including the alleged incident dated 22.02.2026, are matters that require thorough investigation and appreciation of evidence during trial. Significantly, despite the allegation that the Petitioner attempted to cause the death of the de-facto complainant by pressing a pillow against her face, no contemporaneous complaint appears to have been lodged immediately after the alleged occurrence and no medical material has been brought on record to prima facie substantiate such allegation. Further, the defence contention that one of the persons alleged to have instigated the Petitioner was not even present in India on the date of the incident cannot be ignored at this stage and is a matter which lends support to the plea that the prosecution allegations require closer scrutiny during trial. Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.08.2026 and his further incarceration would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the investigation can be secured by imposing appropriate conditions. 7. Considering the nature of the accusations, the period of incarceration already undergone, the delay in lodging the complaint and the fact that the merits of the rival versions can be adjudicated only during trial, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail with some stringent conditions. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions: 5 i. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to him executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner. ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 and his sureties shall furnish their permanent residential address details and identity particulars to the concerned police and keep the police informed about the change in address, if any, time to time. iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet. iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. v. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required. vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court. 6 viii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer, if he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect before the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 22.09.2026 VTS