APHC010560242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10887/2025 Between: 1.SYED ABDUL KHADAR JEELANI ALIAS ABDUL KHADAR, S/O S.ABDULSATTAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,OCC ADVOCATE, R/O 15-1305,CRP DONKA,NEAR BALAJI NAGAR,MAZEED CENTRE NELLORE,STONEHOUSEPET, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.-524002. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH BALAJI NAGAR(P.S) SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI 2.SYED ASMA, W/O. SYED KHADAR JEELANI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. MASEEDU CENTER, BALAJI NAGAR, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, AP - 524002. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 13.11.2025 IN CRL.P.NO.10887 OF 2025. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.MEDARA SIVA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.R SAMBI REDDY 2 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3.LEGAL AID The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.149 of 2025 of Balaji Nagar Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the D.P.Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, Abdul Khadar, having contracted marriage with the complainant Syed Asma, subjected her to relentless cruelty both physical and mental, having initially received a substantial dowry of Rs.4,000,000/- together with 23 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. It is alleged that thereafter the accused, being habituated to consumption of alcohol, persistently harassed the complainant with unlawful demands for further dowry from her parental home. The prosecution further asserts that on the morning of 13.08.2025 at about 08.00 hours, the accused assaulted the complainant by violently pressing her neck with his hands, thereby endangering her life, until her cries attracted the intervention of neighbours who rescued her. Consequently, the complainant 3 was admitted to Jaya Bharath Hospital for treatment of pain and injury sustained over her neck. 3. Sri M.Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the entire substratum of the prosecution case rests solely upon the uncorroborated statement of the de‑facto complainant, without any independent witnesses or material evidence to substantiate the grave allegations. It is urged that the genesis of the dispute is purely matrimonial in nature, and the invocation of penal provisions under Sections 85 and 109(1) of ‘the BNS’, together with Sections 3 and 4 of ‘the D.P.Act’, amounts to a manifest abuse of the process of law. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the allegations of dowry demand and physical assault are concocted and exaggerated, having been engineered at the behest of the complainant’s relatives, and that the subsequent alteration of charges is demonstrative of mala fides and political interference rather than any genuine investigative development. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a permanent resident with deep local roots, having no propensity to abscond or tamper with witnesses, and has undertaken to cooperate fully with the investigation. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner emphasizes that the Petitioner has never indulged in any unlawful demand for dowry, nor has he been habituated to any vices as alleged, and that the imputation of cruelty is a deliberate attempt to criminalize a domestic discord. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner would amount to harassment 4 and oppression, and therefore, it is beseeched that this Court may be pleased to extend the benefit of bail and protect the Petitioner from further abuse of process. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposing the grant of pre- arrest bail, submits that the allegations levelled against the accused disclose grave, prima facie material demonstrating a sustained pattern of cruelty, unlawful dowry demands, and a life- threatening physical assault upon the de-facto complainant. He contended that the conduct attributed to the accused, including the alleged strangulation attempt on 13.08.2025 resulting in hospitalization, constitutes serious offences affecting not merely the individual victim but the larger societal fabric, thereby warranting a strict and uncompromising prosecutorial response. It is submitted that the custodial interrogation of the accused is indispensable for unearthing the full factual substratum, including the circumstances surrounding the dowry transactions and the alleged habitual ill- treatment. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor furthermore submitted that the accusations are neither vague nor speculative but are supported by medical evidence, contemporaneous rescue by neighbours, and the complainant’s consistent narrative, which collectively exclude any entitlement to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. 5 6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the accused, given the nature of the allegations and his proximate relationship with the complainant, poses a real and imminent likelihood of influencing material witnesses, obstructing the investigational process, and subverting the course of justice if armed with pre- arrest protection. It is emphasized that anticipatory bail, being an extraordinary judicial indulgence, cannot be invoked to shield a person against whom specific, serious, and continuing acts of cruelty are alleged. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor therefore maintained that the petition is a misconceived attempt to thwart a lawful and ongoing investigation and urged the Court to decline the relief sought. 7. Sri R.Sami Reddy, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2 adopted the submissions of the Public Prosecutor in toto, further reinforcing that the allegations are grave, the victim is vulnerable, and the investigative process must be permitted to proceed unhindered to secure the ends of justice. 8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 9. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 10. Indeed, grant of pre-arrest bail is neither a license for commission of a grave offence nor a shield or protection for the persons who have allegedly committed grave offence, and against whom specific overt acts are attributed, 6 as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, having meticulously examined the record and the rival submissions, it is manifest that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner disclose grave, specific, and prima facie cogent material demonstrating a sustained continuum of cruelty, persistent unlawful dowry demands, and a life- endangering assault wherein the accused is alleged to have violently gripped the neck of the de-facto complainant, resulting in injuries necessitating immediate hospitalization. 12. The materials placed before this Court, including the consistent narrative of the victim, the contemporaneous intervention of neighbours, and the presence of L.W.5 as an eyewitness to the rescue, cumulatively indicate conduct bordering upon an attempt to extinguish the life of the complainant, thereby attracting a heightened threshold of judicial scrutiny. The assertion of the Petitioner that the proceedings constitute a matrimonial discord is wholly unpersuasive when juxtaposed with the grave, life- threatening act of strangulation, which strikes at the very core of personal safety and public order. 13. Further, the nature of the accusations and the proximate relationship between the parties create a real, imminent, and unacceptable likelihood of the accused influencing material witnesses or subverting the investigational process if armed with pre- arrest protection. In such circumstances, 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 7 anticipatory bail, being an extraordinary judicial safeguard, cannot be invoked to shield an individual against whom serious, continuing, and well- substantiated allegations are attributed. 14. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the specific allegations levelled against the Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to consider the request of Petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail as the Petitioner is disentitled for the relief. 15. Hence, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 31.03.2026 VTS