1 APHC010425472026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7107/2026 Between: SINGIREDDY AMMAJI, D/O.SINGIREDDY PENTAYYA AGE 53 YEARS, OCC SUPERVISOR GRADE-LL ICDS,R/O.D.NO.6-25, BORNAGUDEM, JADDANGI,RAJAVOMMANGI MANDAL, POLAVARAM DISTRICT,ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by S.H.O., Rajavommangi P. S.,Polavaram District Erstwhile E.G. DistrictRep. by Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: SULTANA SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 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 No.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.39 of 2026, of Rajavommangi Police Station, Polavaram District, for the offence punishable under Section 108 read with 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023( for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Ms. Shaik Sultana, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The Petitioner is a woman and has not committed any offence. She is a law- abiding citizen. Learned counsel further submitted that the Petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. It is also submitted that Accused No.1 has already been granted pre-arrest bail by this Court. She, therefore, prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow the petition and grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. 3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest 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 pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that she may abscond, thereby hampering the 3 ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. Hence, it is urged that the petition be dismissed 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On a perusal of the record, it appears that the Petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.2. She was formerly working as an ICDS Supervisor. The de- facto complainant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died by committing suicide through consumption of pesticide. Accused No.1 is working as a Senior Assistant in the ICDS Department. The deceased was aged about 42 years. She informed her husband/de-facto complainant that the petitioner/Accused No.2 who formerly worked as ICDS Supervisor had been transferred to Kakinada Urban and relieved from duty, but allegedly continued unofficially without joining there and received 10 months pending salary. She further stated that she had reported the matter to ITDA and the Union following which she was allegedly subjected to pressure, harassment and departmental difficulties by the Women and Child Development Employees Union President. This Court, vide order dated 04.08.2026 in Crl.P.No.4738 of 2026, granted pre-arrest bail to Accused No.1. 6. This Court, in Chilikuri Mariyadas & Another v. State of A.P1., in, held that an offence under Section 306 of ‘the IPC’ would be attracted only when there is prima facie material showing a proximate link between the acts 1 2025 SCC Online AP 2379 4 of the accused and the commission of suicide, coupled with the requisite intention to instigate or intentionally aid the deceased to commit suicide. 7. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted at this stage. The apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner may hamper the investigation or commit similar offences can be adequately addressed by imposing appropriate conditions. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions: i. In the event of her arrest, the Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to her 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 arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall make herself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. 5 v. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 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. vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender her passport to the Investigating Officer, if she states that she does not have passport, the Petitioner shall submit an affidavit to that effect. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 24.08.2026 RSI 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7107 of 2026 Date:24.08.2026 RSI