APHC010621382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11945/2025 Between:

Meda Hussain Babu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. V.RAVINDHAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. Y BHANUSRI AKHILA

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

3. LEGAL AID The Court made the following:

ORDER:

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 Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.98 of 2025 of Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 109(1), 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the DP Act’).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal-Aid counsel for respondent No.2.

Perused the record.

3. Mr. V.Ravindhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are husband and wife and are blessed with three children. The petitioner has not committed any offence and is innocent. He is a law-abiding citizen and is willing to abide by any condition that this Court deems fit for enlarging him on bail. He has got permanent abode. He is employee of the bank. He was arrested on 10.11.2025 and since then he has been in judicial custody and urged to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

4. Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and Ms.Y.Bhanu Sri Akhila, learned Legal-Aid Counsel for respondent No.2, opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the accusations are grave in nature. It is alleged that the petitioner attempted to do away with the life of respondent No.2. As the investigation is at progressive stage, they urged the Court to dismiss the petition.

5. On perusal of the record, it is noted that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are husband and wife and employees of the State Bank of India. The defacto complainant/respondent No.2 alleged that at the time of marriage, her parents presented Rs.5,00,000/- in cash towards dowry, Rs.5,00,000/- towards marriage expenses, 5½ tulas of gold, and other valuable articles. Subsequently, the petitioner began harassing respondent No.2 for additional dowry and subjected her to cruelty on several occasions, eventually sending her back to her parents’ house. After certain mediations took place, they resumed their marital life and were blessed with three children. It is further alleged that the petitioner developed illicit intimacy with others and again started harassing respondent No.2. When respondent No.2 questioned the petitioner’s high-handed behaviour, on 24.02.2025 the petitioner beat her indiscriminately with his legs and attempted to press her neck with his legs. When the children tried to rescue her, they were pushed aside. Respondent No.2 somehow escaped from the petitioner’s clutches and went to her parents’ house. L.W.3 is son of the petitioner and respondent No.2, who aged about 12 years gave a statement under Section 161 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ (Section

180 of ‘the BNSS’) supporting the version of respondent No.2.

6. So far, only eight witnesses have been examined. The petitioner was arrested on 10.11.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 28 days. As the investigation is still at progressive stage, the request for enlarging the petitioner on bail at this stage is not found convincing and reasonable. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_________________________

DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J