Ramisetty Nagendra Rao And Others vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Balaji Medamalli, J

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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 on bail in connection with the Crime No.158 of 2026 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District, registered against the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 & 3 herein for the offences punishable under Section 80(1), 108, 85 r/w 3(5) of BNS.

(a) The prosecution case arises out of allegations relating to dowry death, abetment of suicide, and cruelty allegedly committed by A1 to A3 in furtherance of their common intention prior to 17.04.2026. The de-facto complainant, father of deceased Ramisetty Siva Kumari and resident of Mutukur Village, Durgi Mandal, Palnadu District, performed her marriage with A1 by giving 10 sovereigns of gold and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry to A1 to A3. After marriage, the deceased joined A1 and resided with him at Srinagar Colony, Yarrabalem Village, Mangalgiri Mandal.

(b) It is alleged that thereafter A1 to A3 subjected the deceased to physical and mental harassment by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, which she informed to her parents. On 15.04.2026 at about 4:30 PM, the deceased made a call to the de-facto complainant and informed him that A1 abused and assaulted her with an intention to marry another woman and to extract additional dowry. Subsequently, on 17.04.2026 at about 4:30 PM, A1 informed the de-facto complainant over phone that the deceased had left the house after he beat her for not bringing additional dowry. On the very same day at about 8.00 PM, A1 again made a phone call and informed the de-facto complaint that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself to ceiling fan with saree and died.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.

Perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners/A2 & A3 would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence, much less the alleged offences. He contends that, as seen from the complaint, except for certain bald and vague allegations against these petitioners, there are no specific allegations with reference to any particular date or incident, and that all the allegations are made against A1. It is further submitted that the petitioners are aged persons suffering from old age ailments; A2 is a chronic diabetic patient and is under continuous medical supervision. It is also contended that they are residing separately and away from A1 and the deceased, therefore, they have no nexus or involvement with the disputes between the deceased and her husband. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and, on that ground, prays for grant of bail to the petitioners/A2 & A3.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that enlargement of the petitioners on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the petitioners. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioners, if released, may influence witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of investigation.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners/A2 & A3 are entitled to be enlarged on bail. The petitioners are stated to be of advanced age and their continued detention at this stage is not warranted, particularly when the specific allegations in the case are primarily directed against A1. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners' presence is required for any further custodial interrogation, nor is there any convincing material to show that their release would seriously prejudice the investigation. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding possible non-cooperation or influencing of witnesses is, at this stage, only a matter of conjecture and does not constitute sufficient ground to deny bail.

In the result, the criminal petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions.

i. The Petitioners/A2 & A3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each, with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.

ii. The Petitioners/A2 & 3 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District, once in a week between 10:00 am to 5:00 pm, till further orders.

iii. The Petitioners/A2 & 3 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

iv. It is made clear that the Petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and breach of any of the above conditions will be viewed seriously and prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.