The decision outlines the parameters for granting pre-arrest bail in cases involving serious allegations, balancing legal rights against the prosecution's concerns.

ORDER :

1. 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.2 to 5 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.259 of 2024 of Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada City, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 80 read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

2. The case of the prosecution is that Dadimadugula Swarna, a 19 years old married woman, died due to the harassment of her husband and in laws and they tortured her mentally and physically demanding to bring Rs.1 lakh towards dowry. Based on the report of the defacto complainant, the respondent police registered a crime against the Accused No.1 i.e. the husband of the deceased-Dadimadugula Sankar Babu and petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 (Accused No.1’s mother and sisters) in Cr.No.259 of 2024 on the file of Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada City.

3. The petitioner No.1- Darimadugula Lakshmi is mother in law of the deceased and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the daughters of the petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the married sisters-in-law of the deceased and petitioner No.4/Accused No.5-Darimadugula Lavanya is un-married sister-in-law of the deceased.

CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:

4. Ms. Shaik Shahedaz, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioner Nos.2 & 3/Accused Nos.3 & 4 got married long ago and they are living with their husbands separately. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 was got married in the year 2017 and petitioner No.3/Accused No.4 was married in the year 2008.To prove that they got married and living with their husbands, their wedding cards are filed. The accused No.1 was released on regular bail by the learned Mahila Sessions Judge, Vijayawada on 30.12.2024. The petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to allow this Petition.

ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE:

5. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. 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 ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:

6. 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?”

CONCLUSION:

7. Petitioner Nos.2 & 3/Accused Nos.3 & 4 got married long ago and they are living with their husbands. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 was got married in the year 2017 and petitioner No.3/Accused No.4 was married in the year 2008. To prove that they got married and living with their husbands, their wedding cards are filed. The accused No.1 was released on regular bail by the learned Mahila Sessions Judge, Vijayawada on 30.12.2024.They have fixed abode. Considering the fact that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 got married long ago and are living with their families separately, this Court inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to them. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed partly with respect to petitioner Nos. 2 & 3:

i. In the event of their arrest, the Petitioner Nos.2 & 3/Accused Nos.3 & 4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees