Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010304522026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 4810 and 4857 of 2026 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4810 of 2026 Between: 1. SIRAPU AKASH REDDY ALIAS AKASH, S/O SURI BABU,AGE 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION ELECTRICIAN,R/O H.NO. 26-255, HANUMANTHUWAKA,KRISHNAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530040 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati-522239Through the Station House Officer, Arilova Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4857 of 2026 Between: 1. PINAPATRUNI SAI DINESH ALIAS DINESH, S/O. KONDALA RAO,AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION MANAGER,DBS BANK, VIJAYAWADA, R/O. H.NO.9-325/1/2,RAMALAYAM STREET,VISALAKSHI NAGAR,VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P.- 530 013. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4810 and 4857 of 2026 Dated 30.06.2026 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Through the Station House Officer, Arilova Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as the Petitioners in the two petitions are different, but the crime registered against them is one and the same. 2. Crl.P.No.4810 of 2026 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.125 of 2026 of Arilova Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (for brevity „the BNNS‟). 3. Crl.P.No.4857 of 2026 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.125 of 2026. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 4. Material averments stemming from the prosecution in Crime No.125 of 2026 is that on 09.05.2026, the daughter of the de facto complainant allegedly committed suicide by hanging herself from a ceiling fan in her house at 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4810 and 4857 of 2026 Dated 30.06.2026 Sanjeev Nagar Colony, Visalakshi Nagar, Arilova, Visakhapatnam. She was immediately shifted to Medicover Hospital, where the doctors declared her dead. The complainant alleged that the deceased had differences with her friends, namely Dinesh and Akash, and suspected that their conduct had driven her to take the extreme step.. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS 5. Sri S.V.S.S Siva Ram, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.4810/2026, submits that the Petitioner is innocent, has been falsely implicated, and that the present crime has been registered solely on the basis of the de-facto complainant's suspicion without any legally admissible material connecting the Petitioner with the alleged offence. It is contended that the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide are absent, as there are no allegations of instigation, intentional aid, conspiracy, or any specific overt act attributable to the Petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the Petitioner has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident, has been cooperating with the investigation, and that his custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor warranted. It is also submitted that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and that his arrest would cause irreparable hardship. Hence, it is prayed that the Petitioner be granted anticipatory bail. 6. In Crl.P.No.4857/2026, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent, has been falsely implicated, and that the 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4810 and 4857 of 2026 Dated 30.06.2026 present crime has been registered solely on the basis of the de facto complainant's suspicion without any legally admissible material connecting the Petitioner with the alleged offence. It is contended that the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide are absent, as there are no allegations of instigation, intentional aid, conspiracy, mens rea, or any specific overt act attributable to the Petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the Petitioner is presently working as a Manager at M/s DBS Bank, Vijayawada, has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident with deep roots in society, and that his wife is pregnant and dependent upon him. It is also submitted that the Petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation, that custodial interrogation is not warranted, and that he will abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the Petitioner be granted anticipatory bail. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 7. Per contra, Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogations of the Petitioners are imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that they may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. It is further submitted that the accused persons allegedly acted in conspiracy and were involved in creation and use of forged documents for unlawful 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4810 and 4857 of 2026 Dated 30.06.2026 registration of properties and it is urged that the instant bail application be dismissed. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 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 Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: 10. As seen from the record, the allegations levelled against the Petitioners are serious and grave in nature. If the Petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail at this stage, there is every likelihood of their interfering with the investigation by tampering with the digital and electronic evidence. The investigation is still at a nascent stage, and specific overt acts have been attributed to the Petitioners. The prosecution has also contended that the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is necessary for a fair and effective investigation. The allegations of the de-facto complainant are that the Petitioners had subjected the deceased to continuous harassment, which allegedly drove her to take the extreme step of ending her life. There are call records and messages in between the Petitioner and the deceased. In view of the specific overt acts attributed to the Petitioners, it is well settled in law, as enunciated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4810 and 4857 of 2026 Dated 30.06.2026 State of Punjab1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, that the grant of anticipatory bail does not amount to a charter for commission of serious offences, nor does it serve as a cloak of immunity for individuals against whom specific and prima facie cognizable allegations have been levelled. The relief under Section 482 of „the BNSS‟ is intended to safeguard personal liberty, but not to thwart the legitimate course of investigation or to protect those who are prima facie complicit in grave offences involving overt acts. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners, this Court is not inclined to enlarge them on pre-arrest bail, as custodial interrogation is required to elicit further facts and circumstances of the case to collect evidence for effective completion of the investigation. Hence, the request for grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners is dismissed. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 30.06.2025 KMS Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4810 and 4857 of 2026 Dated 30.06.2026 108 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 4810 and 4857 of 2026 Date:30.06.2026 KMS