1 APHC010042392026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 631/2026 Between: 1. MULAKALA VEERA RAGHAVULU, S/O. SATYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 2-60, GOLLAGUDEM, JANGAREDDIGUDEM, TADUVAI, WEST GODAVARI, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY POLICE, JANGAREDDYGUDEM POLICE STATION, ELURU DISTRICT,THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. GANGULAGUTHI MANI BALA SARASWATHI, W/O. MUPPIDI SUDHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O. ELURU VARI STREET, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI, A.P. - 534211. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on Bail in the event of arrest in F.I.R No. 51 of 2026 on the file of Jangareddygudem Police Station, Eluru District, byway of granting Anticipatory Bail, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the 2 High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondent/Police not to arrest the Petitioners in F.I.R. No. 51 of 2026, on the file of Jangareddygudem Police Station, Eluru District, and pas Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 631/2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) by the petitioner/Accused No.2 seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.51 of 2026 on the file of Jangareddygudem Police Station, Eluru District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to old Section 306 IPC) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 is also heard. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint on 19.01.2026 at about 12:10 p.m. stating that her husband, late Sri Muppidi Sudhakar, who was working as Manager in the Dialysis Centre run by Apollo Diagnostic Centre in Government Hospital, Jangareddygudem, committed suicide by hanging himself in the RO Water Plant shed situated within the hospital premises on 18.01.2026 between 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. At the scene of occurrence, the police allegedly found a suicide note and the mobile phone of the deceased and seized the same. It is 4 further alleged that the deceased was subjected to continuous harassment at the workplace by the accused persons. According to the de-facto complainant, Accused No.1 and Accused No.4 were having an alleged illicit relationship, and when the deceased objected the same, the accused persons started harassing him by making several complaints against him through the Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS) to the office of the District Collector and other authorities. It is further alleged that the accused persons threatened the deceased and subjected him to humiliation and mental harassment. The de- facto complainant contends that the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste and that the continuous harassment and humiliation meted out to him were the immediate causes that instigated him to commit suicide. Based on the said complaint, the above crime was registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the case and that there are no specific allegations against him except a vague reference in the complaint. He would further submit that the petitioner is suffering from Hypertension Nephropathy, a kidney-related ailment caused due to chronic high blood pressure, and has been undergoing hemodialysis for the past two and a half years. He would further submit that he was undergoing dialysis treatment in the same Apollo Diagnostic Centre where the deceased was working as Manager. He would further submit that the deceased himself had altered the dialysis schedule of the petitioner and when the petitioner questioned the same, the deceased allegedly assaulted him during the dialysis process. Therefore, it is argued that the petitioner is in 5 fact a victim of the acts of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was delay in lodging the complaint and that the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted in the present case. He would further submit that there are no specific allegations showing that the petitioner instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He would further submit that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, ready to cooperate with the investigation, and undertakes to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the investigation is at a preliminary stage and the suicide note allegedly left by the deceased specifically refers to the acts of harassment by the accused persons. She would further submit that the allegations disclose the commission of offences under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and therefore the bar under Section 18-A of the said Act would operate against the grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/defacto complainant also opposed the petition and contended that the petitioner is specifically named in the complaint and in the suicide note. He would further submit that Accused Nos.1 to 4 acted in recital and continuously harassed the deceased, which ultimately drove him to commit suicide. 7. Considering the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court prima facie finds that the 6 allegations in the complaint and the suicide note attribute acts of harassment to the accused persons, including the petitioner. The investigation in the matter is still at a nascent stage and the role of the petitioner is yet to be fully investigated. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the fact that the offences alleged include provisions under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, thereto miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 27.02.2026. KKV 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 631/2026 Date: 27.02.026. KKV