Pre-arrest bail can be granted to relatives accused of harassment based on assessed risks, while a spouse may be denied bail due to serious allegations.

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS ’) by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.270 of 2017 of Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 313 read with 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.07.2017 at Dodawari Street, Wynchipet, Vijawada-1, the de facto complainant alleged that, since the marriage between the de facto complainant and her Husband-Sk.Rafeek Ahammad, her Husband, Mother-in-Law, Father-in-Law, Husband’s elder sister and her husband were harassing her both mentally and physically by confining her in house, without giving sufficient food and when she conceived, she was forcibly aborted without her consent and threatened her with dire consequences. Basing on the above allegations, a case was registered against the petitioners.

3. Sri Naqeeb Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner No.1 is the sole earning member of the family, the petitioner No. 1/accused No.1 is husband of de facto complainant; petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is mother-in-law of de facto complainant aged about 58 years; petitioner No.3/accused No.3 is father-in-law of de facto complainant, aged 65 years; petitioner No.4/accused No.4 and petitioner No.5/accused No.5 are sister-in-law and brother-in-law respectively, of de facto complainant; they have not committed any offence, let alone the alleged offence; and, they are ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

4. The victim in this case was not arrayed as respondent No.2. Therefore, this Court directed the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on 17.07.2025 to implead the victim as respondent No.2 and serve notice on the victim and file proof to that effect. Pursuant to the said directions the learned counsel for the petitioner impleaded the victim as respondent No.2 and served notice on her. A memo was filed along with proof of service. No representation for the victim/respondent No.2. Sri P.Mohana Rao, learned Counsel is appointed as learned Legal Aid Counsel for the victim/respondent No.2. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to issue necessary proceedings in this behalf.

5. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. It is contended that if the petitioners are released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the investigation, threatening the witnesses and evading the process of law, and it is urged to dismiss the petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned legal aid counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

7. As seen from the record, it appears that the petitioner No. 1/accused No.1 is the Husband of the de facto complainant petitioner Nos.2 & 3/accused Nos.2 & 3 are the in-laws of the de facto complainant, petitioner No.4/accused No.4 is the Sister-in-Law of the de facto complainant and petitioner No.5/accused No.5 is the Brother-in-Law of the de facto complainant. The petitioner No.2/accused No.2 and Petitioner No.3/accused No.3 are old aged in-laws of the de facto complainant. On 06.10.2017, a legal notice wa