APHC010139812026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2135/2026 Between:

1. K UNDU SWARAJ, C/O. PRADIP KUMAR KUNDU,AGED 37 YEARS, R/O. BLOCK NO. T2/22,ALOK VIHAR, GHORABANDHA, JAMSHEDPUR,GOBINDPUR, PO TELCO WORKS,EAST SINGHBHUM DISTRICT, JARKHAND-831004.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradeshat Amaravati-522239.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2135 of 2026

Order:

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “BNSS”), seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused in connection with Crime No.3 of 2026 of Mahila UPS, Vijayawada, NTR District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 109(1), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “BNS”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a report on 24.01.2026 at about 21:00 hours stating that she is working as a software employee and married the petitioner in the year 2018. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.1 crore was allegedly given as dowry as per the petitioner’s demand, and subsequently, in the year 2019, an additional amount of Rs.40 lakhs was paid. It is further alleged that a female child was born to them in the year 2022. Thereafter, the petitioner, after returning from the USA, allegedly started demanding additional dowry, and upon refusal, subjected the complainant to physical and mental harassment and threatened to kill her. It is stated that due to such harassment, the complainant along with her daughter left the matrimonial home and took shelter at her parental house.

3. Heard Sri A. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is contended that the marriage between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was a love marriage. It is further submitted that the de facto complainant had earlier obtained divorce from her former husband in the year 2017 and thereafter married the petitioner. Allegations are also made regarding the conduct of the de facto complainant, stating that disputes arose between them on account of personal differences. It is further contended that no complaint was lodged while the parties were residing in the USA and that the present complaint is a counterblast to earlier disputes, filed with an intention to harass the petitioner. Hence, it is prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is at a nascent stage and that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner relating to harassment for additional dowry and criminal intimidation. It is therefore contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

6. Upon consideration of the submissions made and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that there are specific allegations against the petitioner regarding harassment of the de facto complainant for additional dowry. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

______________________________________