APHC010278032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5750/2025 Between:

1.GARIKINA GALI RAJU, S/O ERRAYYA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, DOOR NO. 1-1, PALMANNAPETA VILLAGE, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1.THE STATE OF AP, (PAYAKARAOPETA POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT) REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, FLIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.

2.GARIKANA PUSHPA BHAVANI, W/O. GARIKINA GALI RAJU, D/O.

KODA KOTESWARAO, AGED 26 ABOUT YEARS, R/O.D.NO.1-1, PALAMANNAPETA VILLAGE, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 05.06.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.P.NO.5750 OF 2025.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1.RAM BABU DEVAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2.T V JAGGI REDDY The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.111 of 2025 of Payakaraopeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 85, 89, 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the D.P.Act’) and Section 92(b) of the Disability Act.

2. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Ram Babu Devavarapu, learned counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the Petitioner is the husband of Respondent No.2 and is employed as a Financial Analyst with Bank of America. It is submitted that all the other accused in the subject crime have already been enlarged on bail, except the Petitioner herein. Except for the offence under Section 313 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ the remaining alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.

3. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that there is no contemporaneous material or medical record to substantiate the allegation of forced abortion. It is pointed out that Respondent No.2 did not undergo hospitalization at any stage following the alleged miscarriage. The marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 27.01.2023, and the alleged miscarriage is stated to have occurred on 30.12.2024.

However, the complaint came to be lodged only on 16.05.2025, resulting in an unexplained delay of nearly six months.

4. Learned Senior Counsel furthermore submits that the parents-in-law of Respondent No.2 were already granted anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.5749 of 2025. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the relatives and followers of Respondent No.2 had brutally assaulted the Petitioner and his family members, ensuring that no case was registered against Respondent No.2 or her associates. Only when the Petitioner approached the Superintendent of Police, Crime No.172 of 2025 came to be registered against Respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 118(1), 115(2), 324(4), 351(2), and

79 read with Section 3(5) of ‘the BNS.’

5. It is contended that the Petitioner has been taking care of the financial responsibilities relating to the education of the minor child born to the parties. The material part of the investigation is completed. The Petitioner has a fixed place of residence and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the evidence. Learned Senior Counsel assures that the Petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and therefore prays that the Petition be allowed.

6. Per contra, Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner. He submits that Respon