Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 970
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
Duvvuri Surya Rahul - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Criminal Petition No: 2153 of 2025
Decided On : 18-04-2025
For the Petitioner: Umesh Chandra P V G
For the Respondent: Kuntamukkala Sai Sree Sanjay, Public Prosecutor
The court ruled that anticipatory bail was denied due to serious allegations of harassment and insufficient evidence for extortion, upholding the principle that severity of claims undermines bail considerations.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Anticipatory bail application dismissed - There were prima facie allegations of harassment and cruelty against the petitioner, but insufficient basis for extortion under Section 308 (5) of BNS. (Paras 3, 12, 14)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - Conditions for grant - Court to consider gravity of charges and likelihood of influencing the investigation - No bail granted on grounds of prima facie involvement in severe allegations, petitioner instructed to seek regular bail instead. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of demanding additional dowry and subjecting the de facto complainant to physical and mental harassment, leading to a police report and a case being registered.
Findings of Court:
Petitioner's anticipatory bail plea was rejected due to serious charges, while other accused had already been granted bail.
Issues: Whether the allegations of extortion under Section 308 (5) of BNS were valid in light of the presented evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The lack of evidence for a fear of death or grievous hurt under Section 308 (5) of BNS did not justify anticipatory bail; the severity of the allegations warranted denial.
Result: Criminal Petition No.2153 of 2025 is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding alleged dowry demands. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. observations on evidence of harassment. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. investigation and implications of bond papers. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. legal interpretation of extortion law. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. order dismissing the anticipatory bail. (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
K Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS ’) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein/accused No.1 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.369 of 2024 of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupathi.
2. A case has been registered against the petitioner herein/accused No.1 and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 85 , 115 (2), 308 (5), 351 (2) read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘ BNS ’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 11.11.2024 at 5.00 p.m. the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant by name Cherukupalli Krupa Kamakshi presented a report to Alipiri Police Station, Tirupathi stating that her marriage with petitioner herein/ accused No.1 was performed on 09.12.2021 and at the time of her marriage, her parents were alleged to have given a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs, Rs.5.00 lakhs worth of gold and 300 sovereigns of gold towards dowry; that as the in-laws of the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant were alleged to have demanded to perform five-days marriage, the father of the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant was alleged to have spent a sum of Rs.2.00 crores for performing marriage.
(b) It is the allegation that the petitioner herein/accused No.1 and her parents i.e. accused Nos.2 and 3 were alleged to have harassed the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant physically and mentally, demanding her to bring additional dowry from her parents; that on 08.10.2024 the family members and elders took the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant to the house of petitioner herein/accused No.1 at Bangalore and on that day, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were alleged to have subjected her to many kinds of harassment, torture and also beat her and forced her to sign on some blank bond papers; that when the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant refused to do so, all the accused were alleged to have attacked her and made her panic; that again on 10.10.2024 all the accused were alleged to have forced the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant to sign on blank bond papers with their names on them and threatened her to kill with knife, caught hold her tuft and forcibly obtained the signatures of the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant on four blank bond papers and also forced her to obtain signatures of her father and mother. On the strength of the report, police registered a case in Crime No.369 of 2024 of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupathi for the aforesaid offences and investigated into.
4. Sri Umesh Chandra P.V.G. learned counsel for the petitioner herein/accused No.1 submits that except the offence punishable under Section 3 08 (5) of BNS , all the offences alleged as against the petitioner herein/accused No.1 are punishable up to seven (07) years. According to him, in order to circumvent Section 3 5 (3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘ BNS S ’), the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant hand in gloves with the police, registered the case for the aforesaid offences along with the offence punishable under Section 3 08 (5) of BNS . Learned counsel would further submit that there is a dispute arose when petitioner herein/accused No.1 was asked to be illatam son-in-law, as the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant wanted the petitioner herein/accused No.1 to be in her house. He further submitted that in pursuant to the accusation that has been made, at one point of time, the father of the respondent No
